JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
To say SCOTUS overturning mag bans won't have much effect in WA is pretty silly.

Not sure everyone understands that legally 100% of existing WA "assault weapons" (ie most all semi auto rifles, PCCs, , many shotguns, etc) and threaded barrel pistols will be gone. It's not just about acquiring new ones.

All of them can leave the state, but none can enter. None of them can be handed down to grandchildren or other parties beyond just your kids. This is civilian disarmament, plain and simple. They are just taking a longer approach than Trudeau did.

Also it is currently WA law (passed 2018) that a person must go through a yearly background check in order to keep any existing guns. And the background check can be denied for any reason. Think about that for a second. They currently have the legal method to confiscate all guns in WA if they wanted to. Currently this law is unfunded but it's in the books. If they add funding, such as when the culture is more acceptable to it, it becomes an on-the-ground reality.

IMO many people in Wa are only seeing/reacting to new regs but are missing the big picture of what they are doing. Ffl regs, ammo, etc are just pieces of an all out war on gun owners and guns in WA.

The new WA regs are important but to say SCOTUS overturning mag bans nationwide won't affect WA is not very smart imo. It likely will have a critical impact on stopping WA's civilian disarmament.
That yearly background check thing is ripe for challenge the first time they use it, they're going to have to prove that the denial of a background check was legitimate.
 
Because if it's ruled in our favor extremely powerful ammunition to defeat any WA AWB. There are others pending in the 9th circuit. The scotus ruling could have a dramatic impact on those.
I realize this and even if people were able to buy those things again it doesn't negate any of the new legislation that's coming out, it may say you can keep those firearms and buy more of them and buy mags but it doesn't do anything to stem all the other anti-gun things that are passing through the wa legislation. The only way to get rid of the new legislation is to claim some type of injury and then bring up a new lawsuit against the state and thus start the whole damn process all over again. While they have unlimited taxpayer dollars that they use as their personal wallet most of us and the firms that represent us do not.
 
That yearly background check thing is ripe for challenge the first time they use it, they're going to have to prove that the denial of a background check was legitimate.
I doubt it. Law literally says it can be denied for any reason. They will add laws each year and any violation of any of them will be ample reason. That includes someone who doesn't submit their yearly background check application.
 
It really rustles my jimmies when older threads with titles like this one get new posts. My heart smiles, only to be crushed again when I actually click through and read it.

markup_1000033460.png

I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong here - the update seems to be on-topic. The cycle of hopes and disappointments just gives me the sads. 😥
 
It really rustles my jimmies when older threads with titles like this one get new posts. My heart smiles, only to be crushed again when I actually click through and read it.

View attachment 2015750

I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong here - the update seems to be on-topic. The cycle of hopes and disappointments just gives me the sads. 😥
The whole thing was only going to be for 1 or 2 days at most anyway. It was going to be a tiny purchase window for mags. So imo it was way overhyped (I may have said that earlier in the thread I can't recall). It ended up lasting minutes instead of days. So still have to go to OR or ID to get mags I guess.

The fact that it lasted only minutes indicates they don't care about proper course of law. They only care about tilting things in their favor to drive guns out of WA. Unfortunately it's left wings politics, not law. They are manipulating the legal system to serve their own ends which is the exact reason why judicial branch should be separated from executive branch. In the case of guns, it's clearly not separated in WA.
 
Last Edited:
The whole thing was only going to be for 1 or 2 days at most anyway. It was going to be a tiny purchase window for mags. So imo it was way overhyped (I may have said that earlier in the thread I can't recall). It ended up lasting minutes instead of days. So still have to go to OR or ID to get mags I guess.

The fact that it lasted only minutes indicates they don't care about proper course of law. They only care about tilting things in their favor to drive guns out of WA. Unfortunately it's left wings politics, not law. They are manipulating the legal system to serve their own ends which is the exact reason why judicial branch should be separated from executive branch. In the case of guns, it's clearly not separated in WA.
And they were rewarded handsomely in November.... by the tuna and chicken check settlement recipients of King County and West Seattle Karens.
 
Time to remind you about my favorite subsection of Federal Law...

18 USC 242.

Bring a Deprivation of Rights lawsuit in Federal court and that's BIG bucks.
 
I didn't see it either.

More coffee would help with them Feelz ,i think
If someone responded to your post and said that you, or your ideas, were "not very smart," would you consider that appreciably different than saying "stupid?" Or are
"not very smart" and "stupid" two variations of expressing the same meaning?
 
If someone responded to your post and said that you, or your ideas, were "not very smart," would you consider that appreciably different than saying "stupid?" Or are
"not very smart" and "stupid" two variations of expressing the same meaning?
A )
You're responding to me a week after the fact. I'm not backtracking for context.
2 ]
I'm dumb. Like, not stupid but I know i ain't smart.

And D *
We can be friends if you want. Everyone likes me.

ab6775700000ee85ddf9f8b5fc33bf4459131afe.jpeg
 
None of them can be handed down to grandchildren or other parties beyond just your kids.
RCW 9.41.390.

I've wondered about this. Has there been any legal clarification of this clause? As citizens, we cannot consult the state AG's office. This is the kind of question that somebody has to pay money to find out the answer. Through an attorney. Has anybody taken this to court?

Here is the passage:

"(e) The receipt of an assault weapon by a person who, on or after April 25, 2023, acquires possession of the assault weapon by operation of law upon the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the assault weapon, provided the person in possession of the assault weapon can establish such provenance. Receipt under this subsection (2)(e) is not "distribution" under this chapter.:"

(Here I take a breath between two ideas).

"A person who legally receives an assault weapon under this subsection (2)(e) may not sell or transfer the assault weapon to any other person in this state other than to a licensed dealer, to a federally licensed gunsmith for the purpose of service or repair, or to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of permanently relinquishing the assault weapon."

There are two ways to read this. The first paragraph clearly states that assault weapons may be passed down "by operation of the law" (inheritance). It doesn't restrict the levels of generational inheritance.

The other way to more narrowly interpret this is through the second paragraph. Meaning, once the assault weapon has been transferred a first time, it is no longer transferable. I haven't been able to find anything that states dispositively that this was the intention or interpretation of the law.

A wider interpretation would be that the assault weapon is further transferable within the scope of the first paragraph, but not beyond the restrictions of the second.
 
RCW 9.41.390.

I've wondered about this. Has there been any legal clarification of this clause? As citizens, we cannot consult the state AG's office. This is the kind of question that somebody has to pay money to find out the answer. Through an attorney. Has anybody taken this to court?

Here is the passage:

"(e) The receipt of an assault weapon by a person who, on or after April 25, 2023, acquires possession of the assault weapon by operation of law upon the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the assault weapon, provided the person in possession of the assault weapon can establish such provenance. Receipt under this subsection (2)(e) is not "distribution" under this chapter.:"

(Here I take a breath between two ideas).

"A person who legally receives an assault weapon under this subsection (2)(e) may not sell or transfer the assault weapon to any other person in this state other than to a licensed dealer, to a federally licensed gunsmith for the purpose of service or repair, or to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of permanently relinquishing the assault weapon."

There are two ways to read this. The first paragraph clearly states that assault weapons may be passed down "by operation of the law" (inheritance). It doesn't restrict the levels of generational inheritance.

The other way to more narrowly interpret this is through the second paragraph. Meaning, once the assault weapon has been transferred a first time, it is no longer transferable. I haven't been able to find anything that states dispositively that this was the intention or interpretation of the law.

A wider interpretation would be that the assault weapon is further transferable within the scope of the first paragraph, but not beyond the restrictions of the second.
I would suggest searching for the Washington gun law video where he explained that your kids can inherit but their kids cannot. I don't want to bother to read the law again but it should spell it out there I would think.
 
I would suggest searching for the Washington gun law video where he explained that your kids can inherit but their kids cannot. I don't want to bother to read the law again but it should spell it out there I would think.
Yes, I was thinking of trying to do that. That guy would know if anyone would.
 
I see this going one of two ways:
1. As expected, WSSC upholds their paymasters' agenda an on to SCOTUS.
2. Blue Team decides it's better to eat the L here and keep the bans wherever else they can rather than let Wally drag them to SCOTUS.

Underhanded things are afoot no matter which way they go, make no mistake about it.
 
I have scientifically calculated a 0.000000% chance that the Washington Supreme Court rules against the mag ban. If anyone had doubts, watch the video of the oral arguments.

The real question is whether the US Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal.
 
Time to remind you about my favorite subsection of Federal Law...

18 USC 242.

Bring a Deprivation of Rights lawsuit in Federal court and that's BIG bucks.
BIG bucks for the lawyers, I assume? I don't know of a single person on the West Coast who won any money for anything gun related under 18 USC 242.
 

Upcoming Events

Roseburg Rod and Gun Club Gun Show
  • Roseburg, OR
Redmond Gun Show
  • Redmond, OR
Back Top