Washington HB 1068 Passed out of Committee

[dancinghippos]

We need to take control of the media.
Democrats use the MSM to manufacture consent.
We can't stop this by voting, we have to control the message.
It's how they are winning seats in congress, they will have our freedom if we let them.

The left has been using career and peer pressure to force major media outlets to the left for 3 generations now. Your going to need to go around them, or create messages and circumstances they cannot pervert to the left.
Showing the hypocrisy of people who vote to restrict your rights of self-defense while preserving theirs are a good message. You can get one or two friendly GOP legislators to amend these anti-gun bills to put the identical restrictions on anyone being paid to drive or guard politicians in the state. Get a roll call of politicians voting against it, and publish the heck out of it. Show the public how they feel their lives are more valuable than yours.

 

[dancinghippos]

When you write to or call the politicians, understand that they hear lots of people telling them that crime will drop if guns go away. Many DO NOT KNOW that the STREET COPS DO NOT BELIEVE MORE GUN RESTRICTIONS WILL CUT CRIME. The people who do this for a living should be heard.

You can quote statistics all day long. But when you refer them to STREET COPS who all say those laws don't help, now there is some credibility. Please review this material, reproduce in your own words and flood their inboxes and phone lines.

MYTH: Police want stricter gun laws
TRUTH: Police chiefs, mostly political appointees may echo their politicians. Police on the street overwhelmingly support gun rights for citizens without police records. These are links to recent survey information of street police and their opinions on gun laws.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-polic...ement-professionals-think-of-gun-control-laws

What do police officers think about gun control: National survey by PoliceOne tells all (Joe's Outdoor Office)

Police Gun Control Survey: Are legally-armed citizens the best solution to gun violence?

 

[DuneHopper]

Many have been saying wont compromise, yet years after year they do. I don't doubt your passion or sincerity. But nothing will come of it, never has and there have been more then enough shots across that bow.
I am sorry this is happening to us all, but we have two choices stop then with all means required, or sit back and wait for more laws to pass.

 

[WAW44]

You can keep what you have, just cant use in your carry gun if over 15 rounds with a CPL, or on public land, outside of a range. They are stealing your ability to use the magazine in almost ever sense but "allowing" you to keep them.

Let's be precise here. I don't understand the comment of the law "stealing" your ability to use the magazine in almost every sense.

Current proposal, as written you
can:
- Keep what you already have at effective day of law.
- Have and use on private property owner or under control by you
- Have an use at shooting ranges
- Have and use while hunting or other outdoor activity like hiking.
- Have with you but must be kept unloaded and in separate locked container while going to or from any of the activities above. (as far as I'm concerned, I will ALWAYS be going to/from such activities)

can't:
- Have it on you loaded , either in firearm or next to you, while in public unless you're a LEO or such

So what what is this "every sense" use that is being stolen? Ability to carry a concealed firearm loaded with a 10+ magazine. Yes, that is being restricted. Yes, I have a problem with that, but broad principle based statements about law stealing all use are not correct and not effective in opposing this regulation.

I'm all for writing my local rep to state my opposition to the law, but will not do that on principle or while grandstanding on a soapbox of " absolute constitutional right." Even Heller decision, the most pro 2A decision as of late, stated there can be some regulation. So what do i say to show that this is not reasonable regulation?

 

[Dwesson]

Let's be precise here. I don't understand the comment of the law "stealing" your ability to use the magazine in almost every sense.

Current proposal, as written you
can:
- Keep what you already have at effective day of law.
- Have and use on private property owner or under control by you
- Have an use at shooting ranges
- Have and use while hunting or other outdoor activity like hiking.
- Have with you but must be kept unloaded and in separate locked container while going to or from any of the activities above. (as far as I'm concerned, I will ALWAYS be going to/from such activities)

can't:
- Have it on you loaded , either in firearm or next to you, while in public unless you're a LEO or such

So what what is this "every sense" use that is being stolen? Ability to carry a concealed firearm loaded with a 10+ magazine. Yes, that is being restricted. Yes, I have a problem with that, but broad principle based statements about law stealing all use are not correct and not effective in opposing this regulation.

I'm all for writing my local rep to state my opposition to the law, but will not do that on principle or while grandstanding on a soapbox of " absolute constitutional right." Even Heller decision, the most pro 2A decision as of late, stated there can be some regulation. So what do i say to show that this is not reasonable regulation?

Just to be clear they amended the law to be 15 rounds and under.

I am going to carry whatever I want in my Concealed carry (which happens to be a G19 most of the time, but looking at the Sig P365 for summer months).

The law isn't going to make anyone safer, we all know that. It's platitudes proposed by ignorant Democrats trying to gradually erode our rights.

Thank you for highlighting though the actual specifics.

 

[Dwesson]

View attachment 546735 View attachment 546733
You are one of the minority of guys here WHO GET IT !! Maybe because so many on this place live next to the river, downstream from Hanford.

Come on dude. We all get it and for the most part we are on the same page. No one in this thread has even said they are complying with this law.

In fact numerous people, including myself, have said we intend to carry whatever we normally do in our carry guns regardless.

I said I also fully intend to use my existing AR mags when I shoot on public land and they are all 30 rounders or drums. Same for my AKs.

I also don't intend to stop buying mags after the ban, I have family out of state I have no problem ordering mags to online if it comes to it.

I will take the misdemeanor if the state wants to pursue it and I will fight it. I have no problem being the test case.

Please don't imply we are all troglodytes due to radiation exposure...

 

[Tony617]

I have a HK VP9 so I am good since magazines hold 15 rounds only. I ordered some 10 round magazines a few weeks ago since I thought the law was going to be the same a California.

 

[Herb g]

 

[Uberpatriot]

Let's be precise here. I don't understand the comment of the law "stealing" your ability to use the magazine in almost every sense.

Current proposal, as written you
can:
- Keep what you already have at effective day of law.
- Have and use on private property owner or under control by you
- Have an use at shooting ranges
- Have and use while hunting or other outdoor activity like hiking.
- Have with you but must be kept unloaded and in separate locked container while going to or from any of the activities above. (as far as I'm concerned, I will ALWAYS be going to/from such activities)

can't:
- Have it on you loaded , either in firearm or next to you, while in public unless you're a LEO or such

So what what is this "every sense" use that is being stolen? Ability to carry a concealed firearm loaded with a 10+ magazine. Yes, that is being restricted. Yes, I have a problem with that, but broad principle based statements about law stealing all use are not correct and not effective in opposing this regulation.

I'm all for writing my local rep to state my opposition to the law, but will not do that on principle or while grandstanding on a soapbox of " absolute constitutional right." Even Heller decision, the most pro 2A decision as of late, stated there can be some regulation. So what do i say to show that this is not reasonable regulation?

In California first they let us keep the mags then they declared them a nuisance and ordered police to seize them on sight.
They didn't give you a fine but only confiscated the "High Capacity Magazines"

 

[Dwesson]

In California first they let us keep the mags then they declared them a nuisance and ordered police to seize them on sight.
They didn't give you a fine but only confiscated the "High Capacity Magazines"

I believe this is getting challenged in court and is pretty disgusting overreach.

I'm curious if the more rural/conservative areas of California have been subjected to this. Like if you're out shooting and a sheriff or something stops by are they taking mags or is it just happening the the liberal strongholds?

 

[Uberpatriot]

I believe this is getting challenged in court and is pretty disgusting overreach.

I'm curious if the more rural/conservative areas of California have been subjected to this. Like if you're out shooting and a sheriff or something stops by are they taking mags or is it just happening the the liberal strongholds?

I think in areas where there is low population they don't.
Definitely in the metropolitan areas and suburban areas they do.