Washington ALL HANDS! Mag ban help!

[BrentN]

WA Legislature site still says

Governor has not acted.
and
Mar 17 Senate Rules "X" file.

Inslee signed a bunch of Bills today in a hurry but not SB 5078

Any idea why?
1. Waiting for a pile of money from opponents vs fighting in court? That's what I would be playing if I was a dirty slimey disgusting far left dem gov.
2. Savoring the moment, waiting for a bigger stage with more fan fare?
3......

 

[dancinghippos]

Any idea why?
1. Waiting for a pile of money from opponents vs fighting in court? That's what I would be playing if I was a dirty slimey disgusting far left dem gov.
2. Savoring the moment, waiting for a bigger stage with more fan fare?
3......

Considering how much support for a useless bill that does nothing to actually control crime will cost him going forward?

 

[Diamondback]

Keep those phone calls, emails and snailmails flooding his desk!

 

[Diamondback]

Considering how much support for a useless bill that does nothing to actually control crime will cost him going forward?

What's the timetable where it becomes law without signature?

 

[Jay Walk]

Will he

A. Put on a big Dog and Pony show claiming this will save lives?
or
B. Not sign the bill and push for something with Possession language?


He did spend 27 minutes cheering Abortion protection Bill 1851 with his Gleeful Legislature.

He will sign the Mag Ban.

 

[User 1234]

He is going to sign it. Don't get your hopes up that he suddenly cares about freedom after two years of mandates and "emergency" powers.

 

[Melman]

He's got his insane reason but he will sign it… he's been drooling to get a bill passed so they can keep adding to it.

 

[sobo]

He's got his insane reason but he will sign it… he's been drooling to get a bill passed so they can keep adding to it.

Eee-yup! Confiscation is the next amendment to it. See ya next session...

 

[powersbj]

If an oregon resident buys a magazine in wa now, would carrying that magazine from OR to WA after the ban be an import?

 

[sobo]

If an oregon resident buys a magazine in wa now, would carrying that magazine from OR to WA after the ban be an import?

My understanding of it would be yes, that would be an importation, since that person is not a WA resident.
It was my understanding of the new BS "law" that only WA residents will be allowed to leave the state with mags and return with the "same" mags.
It specifically states "same magazines", although I have no idea how anyone in the world would be able to verify that.
I mean, it's not like makgs are serialized or anything like that...



Ooops...

Edited to remove WA resident language

 

[The Heretic]

If an oregon resident buys a magazine in wa now, would carrying that magazine from OR to WA after the ban be an import?

Question asked and answered:

Washington - ALL HANDS! Mag ban help!

When did they remove the transporting and not carrying part? I followed it closely and watched all testimony WA has posted the Bill as passed on the Interwebs. "AN ACT Relating to establishing firearms-related safety measures to increase public safety by prohibiting the manufacture...

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[User 1234]

My understanding of it would be yes, that would be an importation, since that person is not a WA resident.
It was my understanding of the new BS "law" that only WA residents will be allowed to leave the state with mags and return with the "same" mags.
It specifically states "same magazines", although I have no idea how anyone in the world would be able to verify that.
I mean, it's not like makgs are serialized or anything like that...



Ooops...

Why do NWFA members keep adding a residency requirement to the statute. It says "individual" and no definition of that term in the statute limits "individual" to WA residents.

 

[sobo]

Why do NWFA members keep adding a residency requirement to the statute. It says "individual" and no definition of that term in the statute limits "individual" to WA residents.

You're right. My bad. Will delete/edit.

 

[User 1234]

IV. RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
¶ 17 "The court's fundamental objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent."

Statutory interpretation begins with the statute's plain meaning. Plain meaning "is to be discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole."

While we look to the broader statutory context for guidance, we "must not add words where the legislature has chosen not to include them," and we must "construe statutes such that all of the language is given effect." If the statute is unambiguous after a review of the plain meaning, the court's inquiry is at an end. *527 But if the statute is ambiguous, "this court may look to the legislative history of the statute and the circumstances surrounding its enactment to determine legislative intent."


Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Assn., Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. April 15, 2010 169 Wash.2d 516 243 P.3d 1283

 

[American123]

IV. RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
¶ 17 "The court's fundamental objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent."

Statutory interpretation begins with the statute's plain meaning. Plain meaning "is to be discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole."

While we look to the broader statutory context for guidance, we "must not add words where the legislature has chosen not to include them," and we must "construe statutes such that all of the language is given effect." If the statute is unambiguous after a review of the plain meaning, the court's inquiry is at an end. *527 But if the statute is ambiguous, "this court may look to the legislative history of the statute and the circumstances surrounding its enactment to determine legislative intent."


Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Assn., Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. April 15, 2010 169 Wash.2d 516 243 P.3d 1283

Like all laws that are repugnant to the constitution are null and void, pretty funny how the courts pick and choose around that.

 

[The Heretic]

IV. RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
¶ 17 "The court's fundamental objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent."

Statutory interpretation begins with the statute's plain meaning. Plain meaning "is to be discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole."

While we look to the broader statutory context for guidance, we "must not add words where the legislature has chosen not to include them," and we must "construe statutes such that all of the language is given effect." If the statute is unambiguous after a review of the plain meaning, the court's inquiry is at an end. *527 But if the statute is ambiguous, "this court may look to the legislative history of the statute and the circumstances surrounding its enactment to determine legislative intent."


Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Assn., Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. April 15, 2010 169 Wash.2d 516 243 P.3d 1283

In this case, the issue of importation regarding removing and returning a mag, by anybody is specifically addressed right in the statute. So as mentioned in the vid, the legislators were actually thinking about such issues and addressed them. So there doesn't need to be any court interpretation - it is plainly mentioned in the statute.

So all anyone from any state has to do, IMO, is take any of their 11+ mags into WA state before July 1, 2022, and then that mag is legal to bring into the state thereafter, because it was "imported" previously, and is now legal in WA state and will be in the future, until such time as the law is changed.

 

[BrentN]

In this case, the issue of importation regarding removing and returning a mag, by anybody is specifically addressed right in the statute. So as mentioned in the vid, the legislators were actually thinking about such issues and addressed them. So there doesn't need to be any court interpretation - it is plainly mentioned in the statute.

So all anyone from any state has to do, IMO, is take any of their 11+ mags into WA state before July 1, 2022, and then that mag is legal to bring into the state thereafter, because it was "imported" previously, and is now legal in WA state and will be in the future, until such time as the law is changed.

This is how I understand it. But....will the LEO (I know, a whole 'nother thread here...) confiscate your mags and arrest/detain/book/cite you for breaking the law, as "they" understand it, throwing you into the court system to be chewed up and spit out (Spit out the Bone!!!!, love that song, but drifting)? Sorry for the complicated question. Our current tyrannical gov seems to love living in the gray area, likely because the majority of the courts are "on board", and the rulings are less about letter of the law and more about feelings.

 

[The Heretic]

This is how I understand it. But....will the LEO (I know, a whole 'nother thread here...) confiscate your mags and arrest/detain/book/cite you for breaking the law, as "they" understand it, throwing you into the court system to be chewed up and spit out (Spit out the Bone!!!!, love that song, but drifting)? Sorry for the complicated question. Our current tyrannical gov seems to love living in the gray area, likely because the majority of the courts are "on board", and the rulings are less about letter of the law and more about feelings.

I doubt it.

I don't think there will be any enforcement of the mag law in and of itself.

If you got arrested, it would be for something else and they would throw the mag violation on top of that.

 

[Diamondback]

This is how I understand it. But....will the LEO (I know, a whole 'nother thread here...) confiscate your mags and arrest/detain/book/cite you for breaking the law, as "they" understand it, throwing you into the court system to be chewed up and spit out (Spit out the Bone!!!!, love that song, but drifting)? Sorry for the complicated question. Our current tyrannical gov seems to love living in the gray area, likely because the majority of the courts are "on board", and the rulings are less about letter of the law and more about feelings.

This is precisely the game, to make EVERYONE an unindicted felon waiting to be noticed so that those who become Inconvenient to Das Reich can be culled from the herd swiftly and easily on pretexts that will keep the rest of the sheep mindlessly bleating down their own roads to the slaughterhouse.

 

[GrayGoose]

"I did not import that magazine. That magazine imported me."