2016 Washington State Bill Would Ban ALMOST ALL Modern Firearms

Moeller Senn
The Washington state legislature has convened for a 60 day session, and the anti gunners are wasting no time introducing bills that supposedly address “gun violence”, in which they sort of admit that their “universal background check” ballot initiative has failed to prevent such “gun violence.”

Rep. Jim Moeller’s HB 2354 would ban so-called “assault weapons”, in which nearly every modern firearm is defined as an “assault weapon”. Parts of Section 1 of the bill read:

(27) “Assault weapon” means:
   (a) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
      (i) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
      (ii) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
      (iii) A folding or telescoping stock;
      (iv) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
   (b) A semiautomatic pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

   (c) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

      (i) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
      (ii) A folding stock, telescoping stock, or thumbhole stock;
      (iii) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
      (iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
   (d) A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
      (i) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
      (ii) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
      (iii) A folding or telescoping stock;
      (iv) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; or
      (v) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;
   (e) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or
   (f) A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
   “Assault weapon” does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.

This bill wouldn’t just ban AR15s and AK47s, it would ban any semi auto rifle, including most .22s, as the 2 most popular ones, the Ruger 10/22 and the Marlin Glenfield 60, are both designed to accept and capable of accepting magazines with over 10 rounds of ammo. This would also ban any pistol that is “capable” of accepting a magazine holding over 10 rounds of ammo. This would include nearly every Glock, Springfield, M&P, Sig Sauer, CZ, FN, or Ruger that is “capable” of using a larger magazine, regardless of if you’re only using “California” compliant 10 round magazines or not. The only pistols that would be legal under this bill would be revolvers, small pocket carry pistols that were originally designed to hold 7 or 8 rounds, and 1911s that cannot accept double stack mags.

Furthermore, Mr. Moeller seems to be ignorant of federal regulations, as he defines an assault pistol as something that has a stock and/or a forward vertical grip, which ATF has determined that such features no longer define it as a pistol, but as a rifle.

Section 2 of the bill, subsection 1, reads “No person in this state may manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine except as authorized in this section.” There are exceptions for law enforcement and military use, as well as an exception if you are turning the firearm into law enforcement or selling it to an FFL. Other than that, it means that you cannot give or sell any firearm that qualifies as an “assault weapon” to your wife, son, father, grandfather, grandson, or anyone else, regardless of whether or not they are family or a long time friend or acquaintance.

Rep. Moeller is running for Lt. Governor and can be reached by phone at 360 903 5115. You can also tweet him at https://twitter.com/Jimmoeller.

But the hysterics don’t end there. State Rep. Tana Senn has introduced HB 2372 and HB 2374.

HB 2372 would force you to forfeit a firearm if you have not been found guilty of any crime, but have merely arrested for such and/or awaiting trial. With no completion of due process, you can be stripped of your rights.

HB 2374 would create an ammunition tax, charging an extra 5 cents per round.

Rep. Tana Senn can be reached by phone at 206 369 1253 or @TanaSenn on Twitter.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Progressives Today

  • Kook of the East

    So it begins

  • Bubba Gump

    No wonder the left coast is so screwed up. They must have smoked to much wacky tobacky.

    • ljm4

      no, that’s not their issue. They are brainwashed to liberal ways is all…They’ve never had to actually feed themselves. Going to the store to fill a shopping cart isn’t what I mean by feeding themselves…
      It’s the greater Seattle area that screws up the rest of the state in terms of representation.

      • MyParentsKid

        Only the idiot putting this bill forward is from Vancouver if I’m not mistaken…
        So stupid pretty much just runs with “liberal politician”…

        • YoJoLo

          The nearness to Portland causes a convergence of idiocy vectors. The result is a fascist seedling. The liberals are selling their freedom down river.

  • Gilfavor

    when it starts, most of the left will be un-armed. . .and helpless.

    • lonestarlizard

      They already are. And that is how they want to be. When seconds count, the police are only minutes (on a good day or night) away.

      • Gilfavor

        the time will come, when, the LEO’s across the country, will abandon their marked vehicle.
        Strip off their unform blouse. And walk home.
        To take care of theirs. . . .dem or conservative, they will take care of what’s most precious to them. just sayin. . . . . .

    • Sean Duffield

      That’s the good part of it all. It won’t take long to wipe their little panty-waists off the planet once the shooting starts. They don’t get it. These unarmed pansies picking a fight with 300 million armed citizens is like the wimp bringing a stick to a gunfight.

      • Gilfavor

        roger that.

      • Paul Strand

        The wimp in chief has more than a stick. the Dept. of Homeland Security is armed with 4 billion rounds of ammo and they bought a lot of assault rifles too.

        • Matt Irwin

          There’s a large difference between having guns, which are inanimate objects, incapable of firing themselves, and having enough agents willing to become traitors and use those guns on the American people, no matter how much ammo is laying around. Not to mention, the dept. of useless security can’t even dream of having enough people to take on the American public, even if every one of them decided to turn traitor. As a matter of fact, that goes for every govt. agency. They certainly won’t get any support from the military, they’ve already stated they’ll be supporting the citizens.

    • wysoft

      Don’t kid yourself. I hear from a lot of extreme hardcore socialists who want civil war just as much as some on the right do. The hardcore socialists, who are often also anti-gun, are convinced that “someone” will hand out weapons to them when the time comes.

      • KobusVanKleef

        The “left” would be massacred in a civil war. America has the most arms and developed gun culture of any society on earth- and improving all the time. Feel free to join the extreme hardcore socialists who want civil war, you seem to be in bed with them already.

      • GL Joe

        Not sure who you’ve been talking to, but nobody in their right mind wants civil war, certainly not the right. We a called conservatives because we want to conserve the constitution, our rights, our heritage and our culture. Civil conflict only endangers that.

        It is a shame that politicians have divided us so much that anyone is even considering it. Reps Moeller and Senn are part of this problem, as are most of the democrat party with their race division, unaccountable bureaucracies, constant lies, and attempt to micro manage every aspect of our lives. They take oaths to defend and protect the US and State constitutions, but then dishonor themselves because they have no intention to do so.

        You want civil war? You better be careful what you wish for because that could be the final end of everything. I wouldn’t take it lightly. If you would rather have solutions, then quit voting these idiots into office. Politics is frustration and often not fun to follow, but it is our duty to pay attention to what is going on and to vote to protect the constitution on the rights of our fellow citizens. And beware the bias media. Also try to educate others online and in person, calling names only makes enemies–it is not very persuasive. That is not meant toward you, it is just a general statement for whoever might read this.

      • “On the right” in TX

        Haven’t heard of anyone “on the right” calling for civil war. Be interested to know who that is referring to.

  • JusticeVegas

    Bloomberg is probably paying these two clowns off…

    • twojakes

      you bet.

    • Benji0804

      Along with Bill Gates he was responsible for the last gun law in the state.

  • Redwine123

    No point in castigating these agents of tyranny. Better to act and make the rounds of calls and emails.
    Raise your voice in support of the 2nd Amendment.

  • Bruce T Man

    He left out House Bill 1857, carry over legislation sponsored
    by state Representative Laurie Jinkins, would allow a family,
    “household member” or police officer to petition a court to take away
    a person’s firearms without consideration of due process.

    • twojakes

      this sounds just like h.r 4269 in washington d.c vote them out.

  • Mannie

    We may get to see, this year, whether the Constitution is worth anything at all. We may get to see how many cops are Traitors deserving nothing more than a bullet in the spine or the end of a rope. Conversely, we may learn with pride how many Patriot Cops we have, who will refuse to execute illegal laws, and possibly kill the superiors demanding that. We may get to see whether Americans are willing to kill and to die for our Constitution, or whether they will go quietly into slavery like sheep, unworthy of the Liberties their elders and betters died to give them.

    The very existence of the United States as a Constitutional Republic is at stake, and may be decided in the next dozen years. These are perilous times.

    • There was a federal ban on assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 and it survived every single Constitutional challenge that was made against it. How is this any different?

      • Alistair Luger

        That ban did nothing to reduce crime.

        • I didn’t suggest it did. I just pointed out that the laws banning those guns were found to be Constitional.

      • fedfire

        The problem is, libs are trying to redefine the term “assault weapon”

        • Gilfavor

          imho, , ,way I see it, the ‘law’ carries assault weapons.
          Myself and my household, only have defensive weapons. . . .big difference.

      • Thinker

        This bill goes far beyond the ban we previously had on the mythical “assault weapon”. Notice that the previous ban had an expiration date? Wonder why? Because they wanted to see what would happen, too many people went for it at first but in later years realized it was not necessary or doing anything so it expired. Now there are too may people that understand what the 2nd amendment is actually for and the liberals want it gone.

  • Mr. White Folks

    A semiautomatic pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

    Am I hallucinating?

  • Torcer

    So this means that once again I have to update the list of cases where the national Socialist left has agitated for Confiscation:(Updated to Jan 9 2016)

    In response to an inquiry about Australian gun confiscation Comrade Clinton responded:
    “In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program….. I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level” Hillary Clinton October 16 2015
    December 2012
    How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process Dailykos

    Mr. Cuomo, speaking on WGDJ-AM, said: “Confiscation could be an option.”http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=1&

    June 2014
    “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it – we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”

    October 2015
    “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours.”

    May 2014
    You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns LA Times

    January 2015
    Stop the insanity: Ban guns Tallahassee Democrat

    July 2015
    Socialist Bernie Sanders Wants To Ban All Self-Defense Firearms

    Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto BanDaily kos

    A gun-free society The Washington Post

    November 2015
    Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away The Daily Beast

    December 2015
    We don’t need gun control. We need domestic disarmament Huffingtonpost

    End the Gun Epidemic in America The New York Times [First Front Page Editorial In 95 Years]

    It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them New Republic

    January 2016
    Bernie Sanders backs Obama on gun control

    Melissa Harris-Perry Confiscate Legal Guns

    President Obama Isn’t Taking People’s Guns—But Maybe He Should http://thebea.st/1VLbYcl The Daily Beast

    ..“That’s only possible under a declared National State of Emergency for the Gun Violence Epidemic.”“It is clear why a National State of Emergency scares the gun lobby and pro-gun lawmakers — it would neutralize them.” Victim’s father: Obama’s gun actions won’t make a dent January 8, 2016 CNN

    I want Obama to take away your guns January 9, 2016 CNN

  • lonestarlizard

    More Marxist-democrat manna for the Kool-Aid swilling morons living in that worthless state. Gotta love those ignorant d-bags that voted these two idiots into office.

  • wa resident

    i live here in WA and this is the BIGGEST load of shit that ive heard from this state ever.

    • blaze3016

      same here, Kent. this is not going to go well for them I am afraid to say

    • Nergal

      I, too, live in Washington (Lacey) and I am sure that this bill will pass and do so without controversy, unless we begin raising a stink about it right now. I have already written my district reps, and am eagerly awaiting their pre-generated BS reply. If it does pass, I hope to go we can re-enact Colorado’s 2013 response, but recall elections have historically been very difficult to obtain in Washington.

  • hardresetamericadotcom

    What is these people’s obsession with pistol grips and barrel shrouds?? Are you somehow less dead if the firearm I shoot you with does not have these things? Ruger Mini-14 anyone?

    • wysoft

      It’s pretty simple. Back in the Clinton era, someone convinced them that pistol grips and “barrel shrouds” made it possible to hold a firearm at your hip and indiscriminately spray fire – yet somehow do so accurately at the same time. Literally straight out of bad 80s action movies. The myth has stuck ever since.

      You’re talking about the same group that admitted to having concocted most of the 1990s “assault weapons” list by opening up a Sportsmans’ Guide catalog and picking all of the guns that looked scary to them.

    • GL Joe

      It has nothing to do with functionality. Most of these liberals don’t know anything about guns anyhow. They often go after guns that scare them because of the way they look and probably is influenced by what movies they have watched. And they sell it that way to an ignorant public; when they talk about semi-automatics, the uninformed envision fully automatic weapons which have been banned for most, for a long time. They don’t understand that that “assault” looking rifle shoots no faster than any other semi-auto. And they certainly are not familiar with any gun facts or they wouldn’t be introducing this stupid legislation.

  • vnamvet1969

    They are obsessed because they know nothing about guns. Even worse is the fact that they believe this can be done without a revolt of the population. We can only take so much. I believe that I will keep my guns.

    • YoJoLo

      I’m quite certain that I will.
      Thanks for your service to America!

      Trump 2016! Freedom is our birthright, and only a gun can guarantee it.

  • Sean Duffield

    Liberals must have to attend “Schools for the Stupid”. Oh, I almost forgot. They do attend public skools. Most conservatives just can’t figure out if these ‘progressives’ are simply stupid or if they have been truly indoctrinated by the leftists who run most public schools and “institutions of higher learning”. Perhaps they truly are lovers of the world’s most failed political system: Marxism/Socialism/Communism.

  • American

    How can these communist twits ban our Constitution ? are these left wing nuts going to write Executive orders also, like that nut in the white house.

    • YoJoLo

      Local attacks are to be tested until something withstands the challenges at the Federal level. Activist judges are well placed in our system.

    • jabwocky

      It’s our State AND Federal Constitution they are destroying, personally I think they took an oath of office that needs to be looked at carefully, I think there are grounds for tossing them out of office if not jail time also.

  • GL Joe

    Never trust anyone who wears a bow tie.

    “Hey friend, is that the statue of Vladimir Lenin, from the ex-Soviet Union, in the middle of Ballard?” He replies, “Why yes it is. It was imported and proudly displayed by the our wonderful leftists years ago.”

    Leftist in this state are armed, and very well. The whole state government is run by left-wing democrats with a few moderates and conservatives without a voice, from the east side of the state. Many counties are total socialist paradises that make their own laws, enforce the ones they choose, and rule with complete authority. Much of law enforcement lean toward the left as in Snohomish county, and I doubt really are concerned very much with your rights. We’ve got a district attorney that was elected on a platform of a “compassionate prosecutor” and a Sheriff unopposed who refuses to jail drug addicts unless they are referred by a social worker, meanwhile cities are becoming unlivable due to heroin, meth and crack smokers who use with impunity. We’re on our own folks.

    • Christopher Vandenberg

      Don’t give up completely on us who live on the West side. Lewis County (South of Thurston) is in the belly of the beast but we vote Republican and value our gun rights. Even the Sheriff and Prosecutor are on record as saying they will not devote any resources into investigating and enforcing the stupid private background check laws

      • GL Joe

        That’s refreshing to hear, Christopher. I try to stay optimistic, but it gets harder every year. The politics of divisiveness and unconstitutional mandates is heartbreaking.

  • Jeff Johnson

    Hitler showed liberals what they could do when they take the publics guns.They already are trying to tell you what to think,say and believe,so next is camps to conform
    or else.

    • wernerpd

      Molon Labe…

      • kory

        Come and take them

    • olddog

      1st Hitler confiscated H/Care and next was Weapons..sound familiar??..same with Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin on and on…

  • wernerpd

    Sic Semper Tyrannus…

  • Altair

    So my .22 rimfire rifle with a tubular magazine is now to be considered an “assault weapon” because the tube holds more than 10 rounds???
    Only in the minds of idiot progressives.

    • danske

      Of course, because years ago the gun grabbers passed a law that short barrel shotguns were illegal for citizens to keep and bear(Which is somehow not an infringement?). So if they can ban one weapon(eg. short barrel shotguns), then they can ban anything!

      • fedfire

        Time to ban liberals!!!! Put them out of our misery!

  • olddog

    (D)isarm ALL LIEberal (D)em-wits and their body guards..then we’ll talk..MAYBE…

  • olddog

    Washed-up-ington..just part of the LEFT COAST IS TOAST LIEberal THUGocracy..including ORE-GONE and Kalifornica…But HEY..”Serfdom’s UP” (D)udes…

  • Ronald Reagan supported a ban on assault weapons and was in favor of the ban that was passed in 1994. The more you know!

    • YoJoLo

      The less you care about thinking!
      Your rights are not recyclable. You keep them, or you lose. Gee, that’s right skippy.
      Law is meaningless to a criminal. You know that, so why act solely against yourself?
      Are you psycho, or just untrustworthy?
      Perhaps you are a house thief. That would make some sense of your position.

    • danske

      I voted for President Ronald Reagan twice. But banning ARMS then and now is wrong and unconstitutional.

    • GL Joe

      While in office as CA governor and Pres, Reagan’s stance was this:

      Ronald Reagan, then two-time Governor of California, penned this column in the September 1975 issue of “Guns and Ammo.” Reagan steadfastly held to this position throughout his Presidency, even after an assassin attempted to murder him in 1981. In 1983, President Reagan noted, “You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”

      If something does not work you should stop doing it because to continue is insanity if not tyranny. Get it through your thick heads, Gun Control Does Not Work the way liberals/progressive/commies hope or claim. It makes the problem worse as stats have spelled out for years; it infringes on our basic rights and weakens the constitution; and it makes us less safe not more.

      What we need a ban on is scumbag lawyers from entering political office.

  • BamBam

    Lol, not happenin….not even worried about idiots like these. We all know what te outcome would be.

  • Benji0804

    Democrat’s always play dumb with naming of the guns on TV and print as soon as the bill comes up it they

    will mention ever feature of a gun and make it so it will ban every type of gun.

  • Mike

    Tell those fuckin hippies to come and get them.

  • Mo

    As a law enforcement officer I will say, good luck on getting any of us to enforce this bullshit. It’s beyond unconstitutional and the sheriffs on the east side of the state already said they won’t enforce any of these shitty laws. Hahahahaha what a waste of time and tax payer money.

  • Muttdog

    I don’t want to see a bloody battle here in the states but it appears its on the way!

  • Jim Rogers

    This is all against the Washington State Constitution and will be defeated. Now is the time to vote dictator wannabes out of office. Election do mean things.

  • Mike Sutton

    interesting that when i scrolled down I saw NO voices in support of this crap

  • danske

    The right of the people to keep and bear ARMS, SHALL NOT be infringed ……….. Except if they have features that gun grabbers object to(It is in the fine print of the 2nd Amendment). How about banning guns if they are breach loaders? Or if they use a percussion cap as a primer? A slingshot is an ARM(even a BB gun, hunting knife, sword, spear, pitchfork, etc.); So ban slingshots that use surgical hose that stores the energy to propel the rock(or steel shot). Ban BB guns that use a CO2 cartridge as an energy source or have a capacity of more than 10 pellets.

    I believe citizens of this Nation(All Nations actually) have the God given right to arm themselves with same ARMS law enforcement and government security agencies have access to. Law abiding citizens are Law enforcing citizens who have a duty to defend themselves from criminals, foreign invaders, and tyrants.

  • Steve Borchard

    Wait a minute…why don’t we just make the entire state a “Gun Free Zone” then everyone will be safe and no one will ever get hurt!!!!! (/sarcasm off)

  • RUR5A

    I voted with my feet and moved to a red state

  • yeti7557

    You know what this is…

  • Michael Mansfield

    Eff the left. Take America back in 2016!

  • Dan Michlig

    “assault weapon” is anything you can use to defend your rights.

  • Don Carlson

    The courts will reject any law like this.

  • GL Joe

    Moeller has served SIX TERMS in the state House. I think he has overstayed his welcome! Time to get a real job, Jim.

  • James Denton

    To those of the State Police, Sherrifs Office, and any others in law enforcement who would be called upon to enforce this unconstitutional law please note… We the law abiding gun owners are not your enemy. We are many millions who will oppose such an illegal gun ban. Why risk your life trying to enforce upon us a law that is a violation of the 2nd amendment…which you have sworn to uphold ? You have neither the resources or personell to enforce this proposal and if you insist on enforcement . Refuse to enforce an illegal law !

  • lokiswife

    If they are really serious about cutting gun crimes, the ATF would be prosecuting people who lie on the ATF form 4473 that prospective gun buyers must fill out and verify that their statements are true. The form disqualifies buyers for felonies, drug use, dishonorable discharge from the military, stalkers, spousal abusers, mental problems, under age 21, noncitizens and many more reasons. There are a fine and jail time for
    lies, but of the hundreds of thousands of untrue forms the ATF has collected, they have prosecuted only a handful of people. Why let people lie on the form and get a gun supposedly legally when they are disqualified for various reasons on the form?

  • RussInSpokane

    These liberals would not know a stick from a real assult rifle if someone shoved it up where the sun don’t shine. What we should ban is flagrant ignorance in government officials.

  • nuknuk1000

    That womans bill to strip the right upon arrest? It’s already being done. when you get arrested and make bail there are bail conditions. The agreement ,in WASHINGTON, often includes no drinking or drugs, no guns. No weapons. No attempting to see victim. Finding a job or going to school. etc etc. Those rights are forfeited upon arrest. Folks we are living in a tyrannical police state already. Please wake up. And Fox news ain’t gonna help you. Cheers

  • Rob

    They’re not going to stop until they GET stopped and the remainder, by their example, will be too terrified to start back up.

  • Matt Irwin

    Completely illegal and unconstitutional. These disgraceful legislators have betrayed their oath of office. This is a direct assault on the constitutional rights of the citizens of Washington state. It is null and void as it is contrary to our constitution, not to mention a complete waste of taxpayer time. Not only will no one comply with such stupidity, but there is literally nothing they can do to enforce it. Time for a recall of these garbage politicians.

  • Allen Jacobs

    None of this disarms the criminals; it only prevents honest law-abiding folks from protecting themselves. Too bad the legislators don’t get it. Really too bad that the constituency aren’t calling these elected representatives & providing directions.

    • GL Joe

      I think more of them get it than not. Political power is intoxicating and it doesn’t take long before they consider themselves the ruling elite. I think what they are really afraid of is a population continuing to wake up to their corruption who could possibly strike back. If you can deny the citizens self protection, you have total control-there is nothing you can’t get away with; no rights you can’t usurp; no infringements you can’t implement.

      We have got to pop the democrat bubble in this state. They’ve had too much power for too long. It’s gone to their heads. They forget they work for us. I think we should ban lawyers from running for public office. That would be a great start!

  • GL Joe

    I knew that simkatu. I was on top of it when it happened. Ronald Reagan had a sense of unwarranted guilt for what happened to Jim Brady and he was also diagnosed with Alzheimer’s that year(1994)at the time, Michael Reagan was against it as was I.

    The Brady Law was passed in ’83 and most gun owners and the NRA have no problem with that.

    Your NY Times article is flawed by bias (as usual). Michael Andrews is quoted as saying, “Anyone that needs a 20-round clip of high-velocity ammunition to fell a duck or deer needs to look into taking up golf.” How many times do you lefties have to be told, the Second Amendment does not refer to hunting! And 20 round magazines? Nobody in government has the right to tell their employees how many bullets their guns can hold.

    The article goes on, “The marketplace in assault weapons has since blossomed grimly, feeding the incidents of high-speed, multiple-victim shootings” Well that’s a damn lie. “Assault weapons” are nothing more than “ugly” guns. That’s what they banned. They are semi-automatic weapons which we had before the ban and after, except there weren’t as many ugly ones.

    If it weren’t for liberal ‘progressives’ closing the mental health hospitals in the name of compassion, many of these sickos would be getting the help they need. And if the justice system in this country, and especially this state, were competent, criminals would be locked up and punished and put to death for capital crimes. But the left cares more about the criminal than victims. If you gun grabbers would quit trying to deny us of our constitutional rights and instead loosen gun restrictions, much of these gun assaults would be stopped.

    The more I know? Well know this; States (and countries btw) that have the strictest https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/318313e8d8e9822c93d7959f8588344ec54dcd5d784f5d09d5dd70ae872b0988.jpg gun laws have the most violence. More liberal carry law states have less. This has been known for a long time. Perhaps there is more for you to learn. One more thing.

    Our Second Amendment is the cornerstone of all our Bill of Rights. If the anti-American left is able to chippy away at it, none of the others are safe. Which means the citizen looses its power and forfeits control to the ‘ruling elite’. God help us then.

  • John Saxtorph

    It’s astounding that an openly gay lawmaker would try to pass a state law banning guns. And by ban, I mean, anything you have over a bolt action .22 get’s confiscated by the 2am knock knock raid by the Gun Confiscation Goons.

    Why is this astounding? Because gays and gun owners are joined at the hip, politically. Every society in the history of man that disarmed it’s citizens was then overrun by tyrannical government, and tyrannical governments hate gays. Period. So as a group, they were always at the front of the train of boxcars to the gulag or the ovens.

    So openly gay State Rep Jim Mueller apparently hasn’t figured this out, that his right to suck cock is directly linked to gun ownership by law abiding citizens. What, a tyrannical government that takes control of a disarmed population is going to be a LIBERAL one? Get real. Somebody needs to clue ol’ Jim in that without all of us gun owners keeping bad government in check, who’d gonna speak for him when he and all the other ‘undesirables’ are in the boxcar to hell?

    History repeats itself folks, if you stick around long enough..

  • Wally

    Washington state constitution says this bill can’t go through article 1 section 24

    “SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

    notice the term impaired …. that means no limitations this is also why so many bills like this one that come up ever year go away without a word….

    Also according Washington State Constitution any man 18 to 45 is part of the militia, meaning, the “there is no militia” argument many on the anti gun side have given can’t apply and the 2nd amendment in the federal constitution carries that much more weight in WA as we are the militia by law.

    all in all many representatives have replied saying it’s not legal and pointed to the above information about the state constitution.