Post by: WAElkhunter89 on February 05, 2019, 03:37:34 PM
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190201/washington-magazine-ban-firearm-seizure-bills-pass-committee?fbclid=IwAR2gbuOCKcC9IaPAjyYwlVre_fI1KiQKYM6c1FSu5bsMMna14dTPCo3IoNI
Post by: MADMAX on February 05, 2019, 04:06:48 PM
Ez form to send
Anyone care to wager they get these passed
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 05, 2019, 04:57:51 PM
Post by: MADMAX on February 05, 2019, 05:22:34 PM
I keep telling the wife it’s time to head to Montana
Darn grandkids though :chuckle:
Post by: SeaRun1 on February 05, 2019, 05:26:00 PM
Why do you think that law enforcement around the populated counties will not enforce it? They want to keep there jobs to feed their kids. They will do what they are told to do I would imagine.
SR1
Post by: actionshooter on February 05, 2019, 05:41:40 PM
Sure hope your rightThat is EXACTLY my situation...
I keep telling the wife it’s time to head to Montana
Darn grandkids though :chuckle:
Post by: Stein on February 05, 2019, 05:45:39 PM
These will get passed. How they can do this without giving us a say is ludicrous. Still even if they did King, Pierce and Snohomish would approve it anyway. Probably my county too. This is all becoming too much.
Why do you think that law enforcement around the populated counties will not enforce it? They want to keep there jobs to feed their kids. They will do what they are told to do I would imagine.
SR1
I would have to go back, but we did have magazine restrictions before and if they went to SCOTUS then it's hard to argue they are unconstitutional.
The gun grab provision will be interesting. What are the police going to do if a person has their firearms in a safe and refuses to give the combination? What if he says that he doesn't have any, will they completely search the house? What about if he has them at a relative's house, are they going there too?
Post by: 700xcr on February 05, 2019, 07:08:41 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
Post by: konradcountry on February 06, 2019, 08:54:26 AM
I'm totally against a cap at 15 but that is still much better than 10.
Glock 17 is one of the most popular handguns and it has a standard capacity of 17+1.
You pretty much ruin full sized 9mm handguns by setting the limit at 10.
Post by: jchnw on February 06, 2019, 08:58:58 AM
The Senate version of this is SB5062 and caps the maximum number of rounds in a magazine as 10--which was the original number when the bill was written.
The Houser version of this SB1068 caps the maximum number of rounds in a magazine as 15.
Here is the bogus "grandfathering" provision--which really is nonsense:
(3) In order to continue to possess a large capacity magazine
that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the
person possessing the large capacity magazine shall possess the large
capacity magazine only on property owned or immediately controlled by
the person, or while engaged in the legal use of the large capacity
magazine at a duly licensed firing range, or while engaged in a
lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, or while
traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of
engaging in the legal use of the large capacity magazine, provided
that the large capacity magazine is stored unloaded and in a separate
locked container during transport.
(4) A person who violates this section is guilty of a gross
misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. 25
--- END ---
p. 8 SB 5062
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 06, 2019, 09:00:20 AM
Pass them all they want. We are at a point where enforcement will not act on these blatant violations of peoples constitutional rights. The day has come where common sense law enforcement is telling these power hungry idiots to respectfully pound sand. And the more laws (term used loosely) they pass in an attempt to gain complete control of legally owned firearms/accessories the less likely LE is going to do their dirty work for them.
Maybe not where you live, but... :bash:
Post by: 700xcr on February 06, 2019, 09:20:23 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 06, 2019, 09:53:03 AM
The NRA description is incorrect. The bill is much worse than described. They are trying to set the cap at 10, not 15.
I'm totally against a cap at 15 but that is still much better than 10.
Glock 17 is one of the most popular handguns and it has a standard capacity of 17+1.
You pretty much ruin full sized 9mm handguns by setting the limit at 10.
A standard FiveseveN holds 20.
Post by: konradcountry on February 06, 2019, 09:56:52 AM
To be legal you would have to have the magazine in a locked container when traveling.
Would an officer actually bother to check? Probably not but we shouldn't have to take that risk.
My guess is that more people will carry 40/45 or single stack 9mms.
Post by: bornhunter on February 06, 2019, 10:04:23 AM
Post by: 700xcr on February 06, 2019, 10:10:03 AM
Yea there is a grandfather exemption but look at what jchnw wrote.This is where the 4th Amendment kicks in. Myself and my personal vehicle along with my home is my castle.
To be legal you would have to have the magazine in a locked container when traveling.
Would an officer actually bother to check? Probably not but we shouldn't have to take that risk.
My guess is that more people will carry 40/45 or single stack 9mms.
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 06, 2019, 10:13:43 AM
Post by: konradcountry on February 06, 2019, 10:34:19 AM
Yea there is a grandfather exemption but look at what jchnw wrote.This is where the 4th Amendment kicks in. Myself and my personal vehicle along with my home is my castle.
To be legal you would have to have the magazine in a locked container when traveling.
Would an officer actually bother to check? Probably not but we shouldn't have to take that risk.
My guess is that more people will carry 40/45 or single stack 9mms.
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
Yea well the second says shall not be infringed and they obviously have no problem ignoring it.