Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 06:46:45 AM


Advertise Here
Title: 1705 5078
Post by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 06:46:45 AM
Seriose question, like to know where the masses of huntingwa stand, where the line in the sand has been pushed to for the masses
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Cougartail on March 05, 2022, 08:28:00 AM
Your poll doesn't seem to be working?
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 08:37:01 AM
Your poll doesn't seem to be working?
fixed it thank you
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Cougartail on March 05, 2022, 08:38:41 AM
 :tup:
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Nmesub on March 05, 2022, 09:19:48 AM
The mag ban doesn't outlaw possession and the 80% allows them built before a certain date so why would you turn them in?
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 09:26:32 AM
The mag ban doesn't outlaw possession and the 80% allows them built before a certain date so why would you turn them in?
how do you prove it was built before that date? How would any leo being a prick prove it was built after that date? Trying to skate by the rules doesn't work in this state. From my reading and listen to the debate last night it is a outright ban on possession of any mag over 10rounds
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2022, 09:31:32 AM
The mag ban doesn't outlaw possession and the 80% allows them built before a certain date so why would you turn them in?
how do you prove it was built before that date? How would any leo being a prick prove it was built after that date? Trying to skate by the rules doesn't work in this state. From my reading and listen to the debate last night it is a outright ban on possession of any mag over 10rounds
It's not a ban on the possession of mags over 10 rounds, that was the original bill. The bill that passed the senate and house banned the sale or import of mags over 10 rounds, not the simple possession.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: hughjorgan on March 05, 2022, 09:33:07 AM
I think what you’ll see if these pass is a lot of counties won’t enforce it at all. Just like liberal cities don’t enforce illegal immigration.

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 09:33:56 AM
Can you find that exact wording @bigtex?
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2022, 09:35:19 AM
Can you find that exact wording @bigtex?
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5078-S.E.pdf?q=20220305093241

Read Section 3

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Bob33 on March 05, 2022, 09:35:47 AM
The mag ban doesn't outlaw possession and the 80% allows them built before a certain date so why would you turn them in?
how do you prove it was built before that date? How would any leo being a prick prove it was built after that date? Trying to skate by the rules doesn't work in this state. From my reading and listen to the debate last night it is a outright ban on possession of any mag over 10rounds
The law does not ban possession.

(1) No person in this state may manufacture, import, distribute, sell, or offer for sale any large capacity magazine, except as authorized in this section.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 09:44:48 AM
In there wording I don't see anywhere that says you can possess, use or transport a magazine of "high capacity"
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Nmesub on March 05, 2022, 09:58:22 AM
The mag ban doesn't outlaw possession and the 80% allows them built before a certain date so why would you turn them in?
how do you prove it was built before that date? How would any leo being a prick prove it was built after that date? Trying to skate by the rules doesn't work in this state. From my reading and listen to the debate last night it is a outright ban on possession of any mag over 10rounds
Doesn't matter what their argument was in the debate. What matters is stated in the bill. Show me where possession is banned.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: fishngamereaper on March 05, 2022, 09:59:57 AM
The bigger picture is a lot of new semi auto guns come from the factory with standard cap mags that exceed 10 rounds...
Finding 10 round mags for certain platforms is difficult...so this is basically going to affect new gun purchases...
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 10:01:28 AM
The mag ban doesn't outlaw possession and the 80% allows them built before a certain date so why would you turn them in?
how do you prove it was built before that date? How would any leo being a prick prove it was built after that date? Trying to skate by the rules doesn't work in this state. From my reading and listen to the debate last night it is a outright ban on possession of any mag over 10rounds
Doesn't matter what their argument was in the debate. What matters is stated in the bill. Show me where possession is banned.
that's the problem, I don't see anywhere that says it bans possession. Which leaves it vague and open ended for interpretation of the law enforcement, which traditionally in this state leads to nothing but trouble and legal fees
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 10:02:34 AM
The bigger picture is a lot of new semi auto guns come from the factory with standard cap mags that exceed 10 rounds...
Finding 10 round mags for certain platforms is difficult...so this is basically going to affect new gun purchases...
back door gun control at its finest. I can't find 10 rd mags for the wife's pistol anywhere, I don't know if they make them
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Nmesub on March 05, 2022, 10:02:52 AM
"Import" does not mean situations where an individual possesses a
15 large capacity magazine when departing from, and returning to,
16 Washington state, so long as the individual is returning to
17 Washington in possession of the same large capacity magazine the
18 individual transported out of state.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: wannabhntr on March 05, 2022, 10:03:40 AM
It specifically says it does NOT ban the possession of....
https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-historic-house-vote-legislature-bans-sale-high-capacity-magazines
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 10:07:49 AM
I couldn't give a damn about any lie that comes out of Ferguson's mouth. I don't see it in the bill. Transportation and possession looks to be cleared up at this point, still don't see "use" of the mags anywhere.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2022, 10:15:13 AM


I couldn't give a damn about any lie that comes out of Ferguson's mouth. I don't see it in the bill. Transportation and possession looks to be cleared up at this point, still don't see "use" of the mags anywhere.

If it doesn't say it's unlawful then it's lawful. As an example there's no law currently that says you can possess, buy or sell them. So as a result then those actions are lawful.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Norman89 on March 05, 2022, 10:20:45 AM


I couldn't give a damn about any lie that comes out of Ferguson's mouth. I don't see it in the bill. Transportation and possession looks to be cleared up at this point, still don't see "use" of the mags anywhere.

If it doesn't say it's unlawful then it's lawful. As an example there's no law currently that says you can possess, buy or sell them. So as a result then those actions are lawful.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
that has always been my understanding as well, but I'm not putting it past these guys to sneak something. Calling the vote on the last day at 4:58 for example. That don't have my interest that's for damn sure
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2022, 10:22:48 AM


I couldn't give a damn about any lie that comes out of Ferguson's mouth. I don't see it in the bill. Transportation and possession looks to be cleared up at this point, still don't see "use" of the mags anywhere.

If it doesn't say it's unlawful then it's lawful. As an example there's no law currently that says you can possess, buy or sell them. So as a result then those actions are lawful.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
that has always been my understanding as well, but I'm not putting it past these guys to sneak something. Calling the vote on the last day at 4:58 for example. That don't have my interest that's for damn sure
The bill has already been passed. They can't change anything now. Only thing Inslee can do is sign it or not sign it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Lucky1 on March 05, 2022, 12:34:55 PM
The bigger picture is a lot of new semi auto guns come from the factory with standard cap mags that exceed 10 rounds...
Finding 10 round mags for certain platforms is difficult...so this is basically going to affect new gun purchases...
back door gun control at its finest. I can't find 10 rd mags for the wife's pistol anywhere, I don't know if they make them
They are incrementally dismantling the second amendment. This is just another step. They will add in the possession and restricted use of the magazines next session. Any of you guns owners who don’t educate yourselves and vote for conservatives are a big part of the problem. Get off your asses and get involved!
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: SuperX on March 05, 2022, 12:41:50 PM
for guns with over 10 rounds, they will probably come up with some kind of plug like for a shotgun?  It makes no sense to restrict at 10 they should pick a better number like 17 or 20 :)
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: NRA4LIFE on March 05, 2022, 12:59:51 PM
When does this take affect?
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2022, 02:34:01 PM
When does this take affect?
July 1, 2022

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 05, 2022, 02:48:35 PM
I'm not putting anything in writing.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: NRA4LIFE on March 05, 2022, 02:49:13 PM
Thanks.  Better ramp up my buying.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: MADMAX on March 05, 2022, 02:54:24 PM
I lost all my magazines in a tragic boating mishap
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 05, 2022, 03:00:27 PM
It's disgusting how corrupt our AG and majority of legislators are.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: MADMAX on March 05, 2022, 03:05:05 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/big-victory-for-supporters-of-stricter-gun-laws-wa-legislature-approves-new-ammunition-limits/%3famp=1
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Russ McDonald on March 05, 2022, 03:16:44 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/big-victory-for-supporters-of-stricter-gun-laws-wa-legislature-approves-new-ammunition-limits/%3famp=1
Has anyone read the newest revision.  It says no more than 12 rounds.  Sucks and a bunch of crap none the less.  Bill isn't signed yet and we can still own them.  Plenty of them being bought up.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: buckfvr on March 05, 2022, 03:24:29 PM
It's disgusting how corrupt our AG and majority of legislators are.

Treasonous bunch of chicken s**t morons.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: KFhunter on March 05, 2022, 03:25:45 PM
■  Doesn't apply to me for various reasons, so none of the above.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: NRA4LIFE on March 05, 2022, 03:27:40 PM
I'd like to see sales go through the roof in the next few months.  I'm going to do my part.

I hope those who voted for it realize they just became the greatest hi-cap magazine salesmen in state history.
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2022, 03:55:54 PM
I lost all my magazines in a tragic boating mishap
The bill doesn't prohibit possession.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2022, 04:00:16 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/big-victory-for-supporters-of-stricter-gun-laws-wa-legislature-approves-new-ammunition-limits/%3famp=1
Has anyone read the newest revision.  It says no more than 12 rounds.  Sucks and a bunch of crap none the less.  Bill isn't signed yet and we can still own them.  Plenty of them being bought up.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
No it doesn't. The bill wasn't revised in the house.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: MADMAX on March 05, 2022, 04:01:13 PM
I lost all my magazines in a tragic boating mishap
The bill doesn't prohibit possession.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Russ McDonald on March 05, 2022, 04:04:56 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/big-victory-for-supporters-of-stricter-gun-laws-wa-legislature-approves-new-ammunition-limits/%3famp=1
Has anyone read the newest revision.  It says no more than 12 rounds.  Sucks and a bunch of crap none the less.  Bill isn't signed yet and we can still own them.  Plenty of them being bought up.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
No it doesn't. The bill wasn't revised in the house.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
I went through yhe bill and it says 12 rounds or more not 10.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Dan-o on March 05, 2022, 04:22:00 PM
@bigtex   

Or anyone else.

Am I correct in understanding that when California did this, they initially didn't ban ownership either.   But a couple years later came back and criminalized ownership.

Is that correct?
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2022, 04:22:15 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/big-victory-for-supporters-of-stricter-gun-laws-wa-legislature-approves-new-ammunition-limits/%3famp=1
Has anyone read the newest revision.  It says no more than 12 rounds.  Sucks and a bunch of crap none the less.  Bill isn't signed yet and we can still own them.  Plenty of them being bought up.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
No it doesn't. The bill wasn't revised in the house.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
I went through yhe bill and it says 12 rounds or more not 10.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
According to the bill: "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition"

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Igor on March 05, 2022, 04:38:51 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/big-victory-for-supporters-of-stricter-gun-laws-wa-legislature-approves-new-ammunition-limits/%3famp=1
Has anyone read the newest revision.  It says no more than 12 rounds.  Sucks and a bunch of crap none the less.  Bill isn't signed yet and we can still own them.  Plenty of them being bought up.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
No it doesn't. The bill wasn't revised in the house.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
I went through yhe bill and it says 12 rounds or more not 10.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
According to the bill: "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition"

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I haven't read the bill, but why is this so difficult ?
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: buckfvr on March 05, 2022, 05:00:10 PM
Why is what so difficult ?
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Russ McDonald on March 05, 2022, 05:09:41 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/big-victory-for-supporters-of-stricter-gun-laws-wa-legislature-approves-new-ammunition-limits/%3famp=1
Has anyone read the newest revision.  It says no more than 12 rounds.  Sucks and a bunch of crap none the less.  Bill isn't signed yet and we can still own them.  Plenty of them being bought up.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
No it doesn't. The bill wasn't revised in the house.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
I went through yhe bill and it says 12 rounds or more not 10.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
According to the bill: "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition"

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
There was another version of the bill that said 12 rounds not 10 so somewhere it was revised.  It isn't difficult so bot sure what your talking about Igor.  The bill is all BS.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Igor on March 05, 2022, 05:14:11 PM
Why is what so difficult ?

One poster says the bill limits magazines to 10 rounds.  Another person says the bill limits magazines to 12 rounds.  I have not read the final bill as passed.  Is it 10 rounds, or is it 12 rounds ?
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2022, 05:20:57 PM
Why is what so difficult ?

One poster says the bill limits magazines to 10 rounds.  Another person says the bill limits magazines to 12 rounds.  I have not read the final bill as passed.  Is it 10 rounds, or is it 12 rounds ?
10

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: Russ McDonald on March 05, 2022, 05:50:46 PM
Why is what so difficult ?

One poster says the bill limits magazines to 10 rounds.  Another person says the bill limits magazines to 12 rounds.  I have not read the final bill as passed.  Is it 10 rounds, or is it 12 rounds ?
10

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Yes that is correct I have read the final version.  10 rounds.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: hunter399 on March 05, 2022, 06:30:40 PM
■  Doesn't apply to me for various reasons, so none of the above.
Ding ding ding ,winner winner chicken dinner.
Pretty much same here. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: hunter399 on March 05, 2022, 08:51:13 PM
Here is a vidya.

Title: Re: 1705 5078
Post by: wolfbait on March 05, 2022, 10:36:10 PM
The Morning After: Dissecting Washington's New Magazine Ban

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal