Post by: cooltimber on December 18, 2016, 01:43:40 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 18, 2016, 02:09:15 PM
http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-proposes-ban-assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines
Was talked about on here I believe back in Sept when it first popped-up.
One more try to get something to stick...
Found it:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,201029.msg2668217.html#msg2668217
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 18, 2016, 02:58:32 PM
"Ferguson’s proposed legislation has two key elements:
A ban on semiautomatic weapons with military-style features that render them more easily concealable or more deadly;
A limit on magazine capacity — currently unlimited under Washington law — to a maximum of 10 rounds of ammunition."
First off, more concealable? Pistols are more concealable than rifles of any kind and having a big clip makes them even less concealable. And what is considered a "military-styled feature"? More deadly? Any weapon can be more deadly in the right situation. A baseball bat is more deadly than fists.
Then this quote......
“The recent tragedy in Mukilteo drives home the need to act with urgency to end the availability of weapons designed with only one purpose — to kill people,” Ferguson said. “I have a duty to protect the public, as well as uphold the constitution. My proposal will ban some of the deadliest weapons, while respecting the Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
According to the latest FBI statistics I could find, from 2014, rifles of any kind, (let alone high capacity semi autos), are less likely to be used in a shooting crime or kill you than pistols. WAY LESS. In 2014, 54 people in Washington were murdered with a handgun. Six were murdered with a rifle, and 4 by shotguns.
Now for some perspective....... 25 people were murdered with knives. That is 4 times the number murdered with rifles of any kind. I've yet to see anyone proposing legislation to ban knives. 42 were murdered with "other weapons" Who knows what that includes? But lastly, 11 were murdered with "hands, fists, feet, etc. About twice what were killed by all rifles and they haven't proposed banning bodily appendages.
Here are the tables from various states. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20/
This isn't about "protecting the public" this is about demonizing a particular weapon and passing something that makes you look tough on crime to the uninformed. AND It is about control.
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2016, 03:01:03 PM
Word is that it's a cut and past from the last time and it won't make it out of committee like the last time.:yeah:
But we'll have 50 threads on it, get all worked up, only to have it go nowhere...
Post by: Lincoln4 on December 18, 2016, 03:07:19 PM
Word is that it's a cut and past from the last time and it won't make it out of committee like the last time.:yeah:
But we'll have 50 threads on it, get all worked up, only to have it go nowhere...
Absolutely correct. That said, I'm surprised the antis are trying to go through the legislature again. They'll submit an initiative to the sheeple in 2018, and that will become law... >:(
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 18, 2016, 04:57:30 PM
Post by: Lefthook on December 18, 2016, 06:25:41 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 18, 2016, 07:30:19 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 18, 2016, 08:33:19 PM
God I hate Washingtonfornia State....
Post by: MtnMuley on December 18, 2016, 08:36:38 PM
Post by: timberfaller on December 18, 2016, 08:44:10 PM
But we should never make 223 caliber into a sporting caliber,even though it may help your guns rights in the future.
Why not???
It all about bullet placement anyways!! I know a lot of deer and some bears that have been harvested with just a 222 Rem before the "powers that be" restricted them!!! Even the WDG during the early 70's used that caliber!
by the way;
Guns Rights HAS NOTHING to do with Hunting or target shooting! :bash: It has EVERYTHING to do with defending one's self against criminals and a over-reaching Government. Caliber or how a firearm looks, has nothing to do with the 2A either.
Ferguson needs impeached if he tries it again!!
Post by: Dan-o on December 18, 2016, 09:48:55 PM
Word is that it's a cut and past from the last time and it won't make it out of committee like the last time.:yeah:
But we'll have 50 threads on it, get all worked up, only to have it go nowhere...
I think you're right - this time.
But they only have to win once, and they are wining, slowly but surely.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 18, 2016, 09:55:18 PM
Word is that it's a cut and past from the last time and it won't make it out of committee like the last time.:yeah:
But we'll have 50 threads on it, get all worked up, only to have it go nowhere...
I think you're right - this time.
But they only have to win once, and they are wining, slowly but surely.
And that is right, they do not have to win the war in one fell swoop, they are in it for the long game, one piece at a time.
But eventually, they will tire of spinning their wheels, or some group will sponsor an initiative and get it put on the ballot, then King Co. will do what it does and put it in place....at that point, can only hope they do not use the California version(s)...
Post by: Alchase on December 19, 2016, 09:15:10 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2016, 09:41:40 AM
Word is that it's a cut and past from the last time and it won't make it out of committee like the last time.:yeah:
But we'll have 50 threads on it, get all worked up, only to have it go nowhere...
It's an important topic and people need to be aware and contact their legislators regardless of the likeliness that it'll die in committee.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2016, 09:42:11 AM
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 05:59:03 PM
:yeah:Absolutely correct. That said, I'm surprised the antis are trying to go through the legislature again. They'll submit an initiative to the sheeple in 2018, and that will become law... >:(Word is that it's a cut and past from the last time and it won't make it out of committee like the last time.:yeah:
But we'll have 50 threads on it, get all worked up, only to have it go nowhere...
This will end up being law, no doubt. But it will happen not because of it passing the legislature but a vote of the people via an initiative.
Post by: Lefthook on December 19, 2016, 06:24:59 PM
:yeah:Absolutely correct. That said, I'm surprised the antis are trying to go through the legislature again. They'll submit an initiative to the sheeple in 2018, and that will become law... >:(Word is that it's a cut and past from the last time and it won't make it out of committee like the last time.:yeah:
But we'll have 50 threads on it, get all worked up, only to have it go nowhere...
This will end up being law, no doubt. But it will happen not because of it passing the legislature but a vote of the people via an initiative.
The legislature is a joke, I'm afraid of all the crazy initiatives we'll be seeing in the future.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2016, 06:30:36 PM
Post by: quarterstaff on December 20, 2016, 04:57:49 PM
Post by: cooltimber on December 20, 2016, 06:16:00 PM
Post by: Griiz on December 20, 2016, 07:18:00 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 20, 2016, 08:05:51 PM
Why aren't you out making new Arizona friends instead of worrying about us helpless Washingtonfornians?? :chuckle:
I don't want any friends....I worry about Washingtonfornians, because they're on a sinking ship and need help. :tup:
Post by: Alchase on December 21, 2016, 09:36:00 AM
Why aren't you out making new Arizona friends instead of worrying about us helpless Washingtonfornians?? :chuckle:
I don't want any friends....I worry about Washingtonfornians, because they're on a sinking ship and need help. :tup:
As the Band plays!
From a OKC transplant, LOL
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 21, 2016, 01:18:42 PM
Why aren't you out making new Arizona friends instead of worrying about us helpless Washingtonfornians?? :chuckle:
I don't want any friends....I worry about Washingtonfornians, because they're on a sinking ship and need help. :tup:
As the Band plays!
From a OKC transplant, LOL
Don't understand your comment.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 21, 2016, 02:01:43 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 21, 2016, 02:18:35 PM
http://www.progressivestoday.com/2016-washington-state-bill-ban-almost-modern-firearms/
Post by: Puddleduck on December 23, 2016, 09:22:19 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 24, 2016, 10:55:37 AM
I'm struggling to understand just what exactly an "Assault Rifle" is, that so many have referenced here. I own several long guns including some with high-cap mags and absolutely none of them have assaulted anyone. If the term "assault rifle" is being thrown around as a label, are my muzzle loaders in that category due to the number of animals having taken a dirt nap after the loud bang? As all of you know, 'AR' was first used by the manufacturer 'Armalite Rifle Co', but seems to have changed through the media as 'Assault Rifle'. Again, zero of my firearms have assaulted any human and would suggest these actions are conducted by criminal minded folk with nothing to lose. So having said that, is it reasonable to assume that the 'Peoples Republic of Washington' will be attempting to outlaw my Remington 700, and others like it? If they were used to kill people I would think they would be labeled as an "Assault Rifle" too. Assault - (verb) Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact; to make a physical attack upon another. I shake my head and wonder when does common sense prevail? :bash:
Funny thing is, more people have been killed in the history of this country by muzzle loaders than by so called assault rifles.
Post by: csaaphill on December 24, 2016, 06:49:09 PM
Don't be fooled by the Grandfathering language though bad is bad no matter what.
Taking away peoples rights and or future rights to chose what they want to buy is not a good thing.
Post by: predatorpro on December 24, 2016, 07:04:47 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on December 24, 2016, 08:53:55 PM
I'm struggling to understand just what exactly an "Assault Rifle" is, that so many have referenced here. I own several long guns including some with high-cap mags and absolutely none of them have assaulted anyone. If the term "assault rifle" is being thrown around as a label, are my muzzle loaders in that category due to the number of animals having taken a dirt nap after the loud bang? As all of you know, 'AR' was first used by the manufacturer 'Armalite Rifle Co', but seems to have changed through the media as 'Assault Rifle'. Again, zero of my firearms have assaulted any human and would suggest these actions are conducted by criminal minded folk with nothing to lose. So having said that, is it reasonable to assume that the 'Peoples Republic of Washington' will be attempting to outlaw my Remington 700, and others like it? If they were used to kill people I would think they would be labeled as an "Assault Rifle" too. Assault - (verb) Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact; to make a physical attack upon another. I shake my head and wonder when does common sense prevail? :bash:
If I am correct, and I usually am, the Sturmgewehr 44 was the first "Assault Rifle." Sturmgewehr translates to "storm rifle" or "assault rifle." IIRC It was basically a neologism to distinguish it from the "battle rifles," "sniper rifles" etc of the day. Britannica defines it as a combat rifle medium of medium stature and caliber with selective fire modes. I'm pretty sure "safe" doesn't count as one. So it would need to have "Semi" and either "auto" or three round burst to actually classify as an assault rifle. But don't tell that to our enemies on the Left. They don't actually want to face an informed electorate. :chuckle:
Post by: quarterstaff on December 26, 2016, 10:01:04 AM
Post by: saylean on January 10, 2017, 12:48:10 PM
A little update on this..
Post by: EmeraldBullet on January 10, 2017, 02:29:42 PM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on January 10, 2017, 02:52:08 PM
Requires you to have accredited safety training every 3 years.
Pay $50 for a license.
Update your license ASAP if you destroy or loose a mag.
Can't use your scary gun for protection because it has to be locked up at all times. By definition you can only use it for hunting and at the range.
You have to be 21 to own a scary gun or hi cap mag. No provision for people who are under 21 and currently legally own one.
A pistol with a threaded barrel and detachable mag is considered a scary weapon.
I could go on and on about what's wrong with these.
Post by: EmeraldBullet on January 10, 2017, 03:13:37 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 11, 2017, 01:52:40 PM
"RE: So-Called Assault Weapons Ban
Dear AG Ferguson,
This bill will have little positive effect on the safety of WA citizens (and I think you probably know that), yet your department and county prosecutors in King and Pierce Co.s refuse to arrest and convict a majority of felons who attempt to purchase firearms through the background check system. Known criminals are attempting to purchase firearms and are not being jailed for it. If they've tried through legal channels, we know they'll seek to get them otherwise. You focus on a ban which will not likely save a single life in our state. Your motivation for this can be anyone's guess. But, refusing to pursue serious violations of existing firearms laws makes your office and the county prosecutors criminally negligent. Not to mention, that your effort to restrict law-abiding citizens with further gun control regulations when you won't enforce existing laws indicates only one thing: you seek only to restrict and disarm our citizens.
I would support a bill to strengthen existing laws with stiffer sentences and new laws which make conviction for real gun crimes hurt the criminals. These could have an actual positive impact on gun deaths in our state. However, I can not support a grandstanding effort which ignores the safety and the rights of the people and rights you're sworn to protect.
Look at Chicago and the result that gun control has had on gun violence - none. In fact, it has encouraged criminals to become bolder and commit more gun violence. You have the opportunity do something which will actually make a difference in public safety for good Washingtonians, Counselor. Abandon this effort and move for stricter penalties for gun crimes and pursue criminals who attempt to buy guns.
I look forward to the courtesy of your thoughtful reply.
Most Sincerely,
PMan
Vancouver
Post by: lamrith on January 11, 2017, 02:45:31 PM
IF it is accurate this is one severe and ridiculous set of legislation.
Quote
This is FAR MORE than just an AWB proposal.
So let's boil this down. So far I see:
- AW registration, including make, model, serial number
- Magazine registration, including make and rounds capacity
- Annual licensing scheme and associated fees
- Any purchase or sale of registered AW/magazine must be documented and triggers a license renewal requirement
- Required to document and prove need to own
- Required to document and explain intended "lawful use"
- Defined list of state-approved "lawful uses" for a so-called AW
- Safe storage requirements for all AWs
- Required to document and explain in-home AW safe storage methods
- Safe transport requirements enforced on all AWs requiring them to be secured unloaded in a locked container at all times
- No more formerly legal so-called AWs (e.g. AK or AR pistols) allowed as CC
- No more open carry of so-called AWs
And the so-called AW definition is so loose that it includes my 50 year-old Marlin 60 and Remington Nylon 66
Did I miss anything?
And any one of these is a felony violation?
The real concern is if it gets crushed in committee then they will do the usual deceptive signature collection campaign to get an initiative on the ballot and then flat out lie in advertising to get it passed by sheeple in Seattle... :bash:
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 11, 2017, 03:24:39 PM
I have not had a chance to review the submitted bills myself yet, but I just saw this summary on another forum.
IF it is accurate this is one severe and ridiculous set of legislation.QuoteThis is FAR MORE than just an AWB proposal.
So let's boil this down. So far I see:
- AW registration, including make, model, serial number
- Magazine registration, including make and rounds capacity
- Annual licensing scheme and associated fees
- Any purchase or sale of registered AW/magazine must be documented and triggers a license renewal requirement
- Required to document and prove need to own
- Required to document and explain intended "lawful use"
- Defined list of state-approved "lawful uses" for a so-called AW
- Safe storage requirements for all AWs
- Required to document and explain in-home AW safe storage methods
- Safe transport requirements enforced on all AWs requiring them to be secured unloaded in a locked container at all times
- No more formerly legal so-called AWs (e.g. AK or AR pistols) allowed as CC
- No more open carry of so-called AWs
And the so-called AW definition is so loose that it includes my 50 year-old Marlin 60 and Remington Nylon 66
Did I miss anything?
And any one of these is a felony violation?
The real concern is if it gets crushed in committee then they will do the usual deceptive signature collection campaign to get an initiative on the ballot and then flat out lie in advertising to get it passed by sheeple in Seattle... :bash:
You can bank on it! It will only be a matter of time before they get tired of being swatted down...
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 11, 2017, 03:30:36 PM
Post by: EmeraldBullet on January 11, 2017, 03:53:51 PM
Jimmyhoffa, you make some really good points. At the very least the money financing such initiatives should be diverted to other liberal causes than taking away our gun rights in Wa. I really hope Trump makes good on his promises for appointing SC justices, he made that a clear point of difference between him and Hillary during the election.
I will say this though, the law is the law, I do what I do. Two separate things. I like it when they run in unison, but make my guns illegal and you will be making me a criminal. Not gonna give up my rights just because some politician signs some piece of paper. I believe in inherent rights.
Post by: wolfbait on January 18, 2017, 06:32:58 PM
I sent the following email to all Senators and Representatives who signed on to either S. 5050 or H.R. 1134 on January 15, 2017
Representatives: strom.peterson@leg.wa.gov; joan.mcbride@leg.wa.gov; mia.gregerson@leg.wa.gov; lillian.ortiz-self@leg.wa.gov; cindy.ryu@leg.wa.gov; steve.bergquist@leg.wa.gov; jake.fey@leg.wa.gov; gerry.pollett@leg.wa.gov; gael.tarleton@leg.wa.gov; sharontomiko.santos@leg.wa.gov; jessyn.farrell@leg.wa.gov; beth.doglio@leg.wa.gov; noel.frame@leg.wa.gov; nicole.macri@leg.wa.gov
Senators: David.Frockt@leg.wa.gov; kevin.ranker@leg.wa.gov; marko.liias@leg.wa.gov; Jeannie.Darneille@leg.wa.gov; maralyn.chase@leg.wa.gov; Annette.Cleveland@leg.wa.gov; patty.kuderer@leg.wa.gov; rebecca.saldana@leg.wa.gov; lisa.wellman@leg.wa.gov
Email Sent to the Sponsors listed above:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I respectfully request a response from each of you to the following questions:
1. How will this bill stop one criminal, bent on getting his hands on a gun, from doing so?
2. How will this bill stop one individual, bent on harming another with a gun, from stealing one or buying one on the black market?
3. What provision is included in this bill to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens in this state?
4. Did you actually read this bill, word for word, before signing on to it?
Sincerely,
Lynn M Finney
Today is January 18, 2017. Not one of the Senators or Representatives this email was sent to have responded.
Does that surprise anyone? Quite obviously, not one of these Senators or Representatives can honestly answer the questions asked without exposing their anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment stand.
But beyond that, these two sister bills show just how ignorant those who signed on, as sponsors, are. Were such not the case, when they read the bill, before deciding to sign on, they would have caught the following err:
S 5050:
image002.jpg
H.R. 1134
image004.jpg
You will find "muzzle brake" misspelled throughout these two sister bills … copies, of which, are attached. Note that these bills were introduced at the request of Attorney General Bob Ferguson who is apparently as ignorant about guns as are the Senators and Representatives who signed on as sponsors.
Lynn
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 18, 2017, 07:32:09 PM
No doubt!! Because if they respond, which by email would be in writing, there would be no way to backpeddle or deny at a later date...
Hard to pass off the, "I have no recollection of that" excuse when it is in black & white from their email address.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 18, 2017, 07:47:45 PM
If they want to really go after gun violence they need to address........
Mental health
Gangs
Domestic Terrorism.
One or more of these can be found in almost any mass shooting.
Post by: Gunsmoke on January 18, 2017, 09:06:41 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 19, 2017, 07:27:19 PM
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/alerts/alert-even-more-anti-gun-bills-coming-in-washington/
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170113/alert-wa-state-proposes-draconian-gun-ban-bills
Post by: hunter399 on January 19, 2017, 07:32:01 PM
Licenses would not be available to persons under 21 years of age. Applicants would have to show proof of completing the specific kind of comprehensive training, and provide a statement that he or she will only use the gun or LCM for the specified “lawful” purposes and will always use “safe gun storage” when the "assault weapon" or LCM is not in the person’s “immediate possession.” The license applicant must provide a “full description” of both the lawful purpose for which the assault weapon or LCM is sought and the “safe gun storage” the applicant will use. The application also requires a minimum $50 fee, detailed personal information, detailed information about the weapon or LCM, fingerprinting, and a state database/NICS check. The bill also imposes a “great care” standard for licensees, in which the licensee must keep the assault weapon unloaded, within “secure gun storage,” when it is not in the licensee’s immediate possession.
Licensed dealers would be prohibited from selling or delivering an "assault weapon" or LCM to any person who does not have a state-issued license. Even with licensees, the bill would require the dealer to keep records of every transaction, to be submitted to local law enforcement. Further, because Washington State has a private background check requirement that applies to sales and “transfers” of firearms, the dealer performing a background check on a non-sale private “transfer” of an "assault weapon" is prohibited from “facilitating the transfer” if the parties lack the necessary licenses. Residents of other states would be prohibited from purchasing rifles and shotguns in Washington if the firearm comes within the definition of “assault weapon.”
And if all this wasn’t enough, the penalties for violations of these bills are staggering. Under the first bill, any violations are Class C felonies, as are violations of the licensing or the “great care” requirements in the second bill. Class C felonies are punishable by five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both the imprisonment and the fine.
Post by: Special T on January 19, 2017, 07:50:37 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 20, 2017, 05:40:12 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2017, 03:35:48 PM
"Thank you for sharing your opinion about the Attorney General’s request that the Legislature enact a bill to ban the sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines in Washington or, alternatively, to raise the purchase age and apply enhanced background checks to assault weapons purchases. Before either bill becomes law, it must be passed by both chambers of the Legislature and signed by the Governor.
The text of the Attorney General’s proposed legislation is available on our website, and current version(s), as amended where applicable, will be available from the Legislature’s website.
We appreciate your feedback on this important issue.
Kindly,
Public Records
&Constituent Services"
What a piece of garbage! :bash:
Post by: hunter399 on January 20, 2017, 03:37:38 PM
Couldn't all this bs be avoided by purchasing a bolt action upper for the lower you own?No because of the pistol grip it's still falls under assault weapon.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2017, 03:39:55 PM
Couldn't all this bs be avoided by purchasing a bolt action upper for the lower you own?
Not going to happen, even if it were legal with the pistol grip (which it isn't). We need to defeat this bill if it ever gets out of committee. :tup:
Post by: hunter399 on January 20, 2017, 03:43:34 PM
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2017, 03:45:19 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 20, 2017, 03:49:29 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 20, 2017, 03:57:28 PM
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/featureless-ar-15-rifle-grips-stocks-muzzle-devices/
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2017, 04:51:26 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on January 20, 2017, 05:00:29 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 20, 2017, 09:05:26 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2017, 09:16:55 PM
The Fightlite lower is pretty cool.
It uses a shotgun buttstock, recoil system and trigger assy.
That magazine would still be illegal.
Post by: 81husky on January 20, 2017, 10:21:28 PM
This will not pass the legislature!!I agree, but will it come back as an initiative?
Post by: mountainman on January 20, 2017, 10:33:25 PM
The Fightlite lower is pretty cool.kinda fugly actually...
It uses a shotgun buttstock, recoil system and trigger assy.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 20, 2017, 10:58:23 PM
This will not pass the legislature!!I agree, but will it come back as an initiative?
You can bet on it! Only a matter of time...
Post by: Oh Mah on January 21, 2017, 12:04:03 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 21, 2017, 06:59:43 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 21, 2017, 09:24:23 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 21, 2017, 11:08:27 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 21, 2017, 01:33:24 PM
Post by: quarterstaff on January 21, 2017, 02:14:11 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on January 22, 2017, 05:50:47 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 23, 2017, 08:13:13 AM
quote source please :yeah:
Good job with ferreting out false news or alternative facts! As much as I don't like the WaAG, I doubt 1/4 is doing anything other than reciting fourth hand hear say.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 23, 2017, 08:15:57 AM
might be a good time to start a recall campaign, he is also been quoted as saying a persons religious freedom is a right only when kept within yourself. :dunno:
For a start, requires a full 25% petition for recall, which is about 1.07 million.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 23, 2017, 09:58:28 AM
quote source please :yeah:Think he might be referring to this
http://freedomoutpost.com/washington-ag-claims-that-religious-expression-must-remain-inside-the-person/ (http://freedomoutpost.com/washington-ag-claims-that-religious-expression-must-remain-inside-the-person/)
Post by: quarterstaff on January 25, 2017, 05:52:19 PM