JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Your assuming they give a crap.

As we've seen in the recent election and aftermath, the left and the following idiots only want destruction and obliteration of the right and everything they stand for. The 2A is at the foundation of that.

^ This, sadly. Many of those that espouse an anti-RKBA position also have a philosophy that they absolutely know best and they're perfectly fine to use force to attain their goals. Usually, that force is through the state, but the spasms we're seeing around the country are another manifestation of the same mentality. Put another way, they don't give a damn what rights they violate or who's livelihood they destroy, as long as it furthers their aims. You know, good old-fashioned tyranny.
 
They just want their boot on your neck and you to be a good little slave that does what it's told. They can't be reasoned with and will stop at nothing to effect this.
Didn't really read the OP.. it looked well thought out and all but why bother.. see above.
 
I could be all wet on this one but are we missing an opportunity when talking to the opposition or even the moderates and uninitiated on gun laws if we don't bring up the economic benefits?

Off the top of my head I can think of several small WA companies that would likely go out of business if ARs are banned again. Not to mention the many gun shops that ARs & accessories amount to a lot of their business. Maybe be should portray the anti gunners as anti business and anti jobs with their attacks on our rights? Seems like this would be a worthwhile poll for one of the gun rights orgs. to conduct. Questions like, how much of your business is AR related? Without it would you have to lay off employees? Would loss of AR, AR accessories and ammo sales for AR variants put your business in the Red? Sure, in the WalMarts and big box stores like Sportsmans Guide it won't hurt as much. But the smaller one or two person mom and pops, the guys and gals who make triggers, and other cool improvement items, I am sure the loss of ARs hurts.

Just some thoughts that occurred to me over coffee this AM.

I mean yes we all know that RTKBA is the core question but showing the economic damage seems to be a better tactic to fight in the legislatures and on the streets in every day conversation. Is there any hard data out there for NW companies who depend on this? It also aids the aluminum factories as well as machinery/CNC companies, etc. No one is banning Ferraris or Rousch Mustangs because they go too fast, right?

Brutus Out
Not looking to hijack this thread but want to bring attention to the fact that they don't care. I have pasted in an email included in response to my FOIA request. Skip down to 6, then go read the legislation currently on the plate. They did not remove the language detailing barrel shrouds.

IF passed this proposed legislation will eradicate retail and private sales. Make no mistake this is the same tactic former senator now mayor Murray pulled with his safe storage legislation a few years ago.

~Whitney

Cleveland, Allison (ATG)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Webb, Mike (ATG)
Friday, October 21, 2016 11:33 AM
Marlow, Scott (ATG)
FW: Assault Weapons Draft Legislation
Thoughts?
Mike Webb
Legislative Affairs Director| Office of State Attorney General Bob Ferguson
1125 Washington Street SE | PO Box 40100 | Olympia | WA | 98504 0100
Phone: (206) 735 2815 | Cell: (206) 735 2815 | E mail: [email protected]
From: Melchiori, Aldo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 11:11 AM
To: Webb, Mike (ATG); Frockt, David; Ranker, Kevin
Cc: Cantore, Victoria
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Draft Legislation
Number 4 ✁ is this an unconstitutional burden shift ✁ making the defendant disprove an element of the crime without
first requiring the prosecution to prove it? I do not know the answer to this yet, but I think there may be a line of cases
about this in other contexts.
Aldo
(360) 786-7439
From: Webb, Mike (ATG) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Melchiori, Aldo <[email protected]>; Frockt, Sen. David <[email protected]>; Ranker, Sen. Kevin
<[email protected]>
Cc: Cantore, Victoria <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Draft Legislation
Senators Frockt and Ranker,
I have attached the latest draft of the assault weapons/high capacity magazine legislation. The changes
are tracked and highlighted. I will summarize those below, along with the rationale for the changes.
1) Amended the title to clarify we are banning the sale of assault weapons and high capacity
magazines;
2) Added a severability clause;
3) At Aldo's suggestion, removed Section 3 so that a violation is an unranked Class C Felony,
providing the court maximum discretion at imposing penalties;
4) To address Aldo's thought #2 below – the issue of how a prosecutor might prove that a person did
not own the weapon on the effective date – we have added an affirmative defense in Sec. 2(2)(a)
putting the burden on the owner to prove he or she owned the assault weapon on or prior to the
ban went into effect. This can be accomplished through a receipt, photographs, affidavits, etc.
1
WS-00477
PRR-2016-004815) With a slight tweak, we have reinserted the language requiring owners of grandfathered assault
weapons to store the weapon in "secure gun storage" when not transporting the weapon to a
licensed gun dealership. Sec. 2(3) For the definition of "secure gun storage" I used the language in
the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, along with New York and Connecticut.
This is in part a response to the Burlington shooter, who was able to make off with his step
father's 25 cartidge magazine. [See research on other state and federal safe storage requirements
below.]
a. I am in the process of running this language through our Solicitor General's Office for
potential flags;
b. I note that the "secure gun storage" definition does not address trigger locks or other
safety devices. If we were to require safety devices, we will need to answer a number of
complicated questions other states have struggled with, including what constitutes safe?
Does it require testing? If so, who does the testing? The Attorney General of California sets
out a list of approved gun safety devices; I am not sure we want to go down that road.
However, under the current draft, one might question why they should not be allowed to
keep a trigger lock on their weapon in lieu of safe, secure storage in a gun safe.
c. The restrictions on the use of banned weapons (which I took from Aldo's original draft)
does not provide for hunting. Is that intentional? I understand there are a very limited
number of areas and a very limited number of seasons in which a person could use an
assault weapon for hunting in Washington, but it is not totally prohibited. I wonder if we
should provide for that?
6) In the definition of assault weapon, we have removed a semi automatic rifle that has a barrel
shroud. This was not in other states' definition, and was added to capture the "California
compliant" Ares Defense SCR semiautomatic rifle. Ultimately, we decided including the barrel
shroud would encompass too many traditional hunting style rifles. We can continue thinking
about the Ares.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Possible definitions for "safely and securely"
Massachusetts requires that guns be locked when stored (27.Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, §§ 131K, 131L(a);
940 Mass. Code Regs. 16.02, 16.04 – 16.07) while California, Connecticut and New York have such a
requirement in certain circumstances (23.Cal. Penal Code §§ 16540, 16610, 16870, 23635 23690,
31910(a)(1), (b)(1), 25135, 32000; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, §§ 4093 – 4099. 24.Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 29
33(d), 29 37b, 29 37i. 31.N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 396 ee; New York Penal Law § 265.45; N.Y. Comp. Codes R.
& Regs. tit. 9, § 471.2.)
The Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (passed in October 2005) makes it unlawful
(with various exceptions) to sell or transfer a handgun without secure gun storage or a safety device. 18
U.S.C. Sec. 921(a)(34) defines a "secure gun storage or safety device" as (A) a device that, when installed
on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the
firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or (C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other
device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by
means of a key, a combination, or other similar means. (It appears that using a mere "zip tie" to hold open
the breach of the firearm would satisfy this definition of "safety device," but would clearly not be "safe
and secure" as intended by the new law.)[/SPOILER]
 
Last Edited:
...the left and the following idiots only want...

...the progressive left is economically ignorant. It would be like trying to explain the internal combustion engine to my dog.

...The Radical Left have always been terrorists, ever since the days of Marx and Lenin...

Every time someone here describes liberals, they sound exactly like anti-gun folks describing us, and how well do those stereotypes fit us? Myself, being neither left nor right, find it both amusing and frustrating that both sides paint the other as some fantastic and ludicrous monstrosity. It's always, "We're sane, rational and intelligent, but the other side is BUBBLEGUM GODZILLA RIDING BUBBLEGUM DEATHRAYS!!!" And both sides over-simplify and stereotype the other to the point of reductio ad absurdum.

As a general rule of thumb in any conversation on any topic, if you begin from the assumption that the other person is stupid and deplorable, you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, actually hear and understand what they're saying, so you have no chance whatsoever to sway their hearts and/or minds. It's like trying to befriend a dog by kicking it.

To ensure the 2A continues (more or less) un-infringed, we need to sway people to our side, or at least warm them up to it. Pointing out the economic facet of the issue is a smart idea, and I've found the other side receptive to it when writing my reps.

When talking politics, most people, on any side of any controversial issue, respond emotionally, not logically or rationally. Indeed, that is true of almost any issue, ranging from gun control to whether you buy organic veggies or not.

This is true. The rub is that very few people have the self-awareness to recognize they themselves are guilty of this.
 
The gist of my OP was that we might try the economic impact on the moderate folks who could be persuaded by showing the negative economic impact. Magpul in CO was one company.... There are probably a dozen AR companies in WA with total sales of well over $100 million a year...Aero Precision, Rainier Arms, Olympic Arms, Hardened Arms, Surplus Ammo & Arms, and lotsa of gun shops that work on them and will assemble your custom RR. Not to mention Cerakoters etc... Kali's too far gone but WA and OR aren't yet!

Brutus Out
 
Every time someone here describes liberals, they sound exactly like anti-gun folks describing us, and how well do those stereotypes fit us?

I describe the Progressive Left based on what I've seen and heard.

I don't particularly care what my opinion sounds like to anyone. My political opinions and viewpoints have been developed through years of observation and testing and are impervious to alteration via argument or discussion. I'm old enough that I no longer have the inclination or desire to compromise, therefore I don't feel the need to sugarcoat what I see as the truth.

"Conversation" and "discussion" aren't of much use when views are polarized like they seem to be these days. Usually such words are used to mean "Surrender" and "Relent". Let others with the energy and patience engage in such useless frivolities. I would rather jog home after a vasectomy. I would rather eat hard candy after a root canal. I would rather have a colonoscopy riding on a roller-coaster.
 
The "ungunners" are so completely uneducated on guns it's like asking a brain surgeon which screwdriver they prefer.

Until more Americans can be educated on guns in general it's all a losing battle. This is where the left is winning. Keep people stupid. Then they can make up what ever arguments they want and get people to believe them.
 
The gist of my OP was that we might try the economic impact on the moderate folks who could be persuaded by showing the negative economic impact. Magpul in CO was one company.... There are probably a dozen AR companies in WA with total sales of well over $100 million a year...Aero Precision, Rainier Arms, Olympic Arms, Hardened Arms, Surplus Ammo & Arms, and lotsa of gun shops that work on them and will assemble your custom RR. Not to mention Cerakoters etc... Kali's too far gone but WA and OR aren't yet!

Brutus Out
With regard to 1134 and economic impact:

In response to FOIA request was the following, "In the definition of assault weapon, we have removed a semi automatic rifle that has a barrel shroud. This was not in other states' definition, and was added to capture the "California compliant" Ares Defense SCR semiautomatic rifle. Ultimately, we decided including the barrel shroud would encompass too many traditional hunting style rifles."

This language was not removed from the bill and as such will effectively eradicate all retail and private sale of EVERY semi-automatic rifle in production today, and most semi-automatic handguns.

Wildlife Restoration Act, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act provides funding for habitat management and restoration. Funds are derived from an 11 percent federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment and a 10 percent tax on handguns. Loss of these funds would severely impact any wildlife management or habitat restoration.

$7,264,229.00 granted to Washington in 2013.

~Whitney
 
Considering that's exactly how a lot of "them" feel, you're just proving the point of how similar you are.

That would be of concern if I cared what others think of me. But I'm not engaged in an effort to change the world, or other people's opinions. Everyone is free to think and say as they wish, even if the views they (or I) hold are wrong.

I know it's fashionable these days to consider ourselves "ambassadors" for our lifestyle choices (in this case, firearms), and to hold that we all have a duty to "educate" and "enlighten" the other side. In my opinion such thinking is male cow poop. I think social media has made us all think we should be pundits and promote our "brand".

Frankly, I've found that to be far too tiring and enervating. Instead, I prefer to do my own thing my own way and to heck with what others think. In conversations I tend not to share my opinions because that would mean I'd have to listen to yours (not "yours" personally, but in the sense of the person I'm talking to at the time).

My dad, who was known as a man of few words, shortened a popular phrase to better reflect his attitude, and I've adopted that as my own. The phrase:

"People's Opinions Are Arseholes."
 
Do we? Because a lot of judges, even Federal ones, around here have ruled otherwise when our side has tried it before... :(
Tried what? For one, how 'bout the untold numbers that have been murdered, assaulted, yadda, only because they have been denied the right to carry.. very often statewide?
There's standing/damages for you by large numbers, and for decades.
 
Your assuming they give a crap.

As we've seen in the recent election and aftermath, the left and the following idiots only want destruction and obliteration of the right and everything they stand for. The 2A is at the foundation of that.

Agreed. And my observation, and since you are a young guy you can maybe shed some light on this, but to me it seems the millennial liberals are almost rabid like in their hatred of conservatives and anything conservative, and are dedicated to the conversion of all to socialism and the elimination of anybody over 45 in this society.
 
CD, I seem to recall the last time we in Washington tried to bring a large action, I forget if it was against a law or recalling a pol, the case was thrown out on "lack of standing" like an apparent thinking of "only the state gov would have standing to contest this, unless you've been personally directly harmed."
 
Agreed. And my observation, and since you are a young guy you can maybe shed some light on this, but to me it seems the millennial liberals are almost rabid like in their hatred of conservatives and anything conservative, and are dedicated to the conversion of all to socialism and the elimination of anybody over 45 in this society.
That's what I've seen among my own former classmates, and I'm in my mid thirties... hence my adoption of a general guideline of "don't trust anybody under 50."
 
CD, I seem to recall the last time we in Washington tried to bring a large action, I forget if it was against a law or recalling a pol, the case was thrown out on "lack of standing" like an apparent thinking of "only the state gov would have standing to contest this, unless you've been personally directly harmed."
I hear you and don't doubt that. Do you not think "someone" (state-wide and for decades by thousands) being murdered, maimed, robbed etc. because they were denied the right to bear arms does not count as standing?
The prohibitors of that right are directly responsible for those damages I would say.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top