Washington Mag ban imminent in Washington state

[No_Regerts]

Serious question: If WA passed a law requiring all firearms owners to burn their own firearms in their backyards, and refused to pay fair market value for that property, would that pass 5A muster? The ownership never changed afterall.

Let me quote Judge Benitez from the CA mag ban case, page 83, lines 24-27: https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf



Magazine owners must surrender their magazines for destruction. The authorities will not have them so ownership doesn't change. A "taking" under the 5A is more than "take and keep" -- think of it instead as "take away from". When CA decided to take away magazines but not pay for the privilege, it violated the 5A and was thus one reason Benitez ruled the law unconstitutional.

The house owner, had he been home, would have been ordered out of the way. If he said "no, get off my lawn", he'd surely have been arrested or worse. He surrendered his property to the authorities for destruction but was refused compensation, just like CA magazine owners. And just as CA (and soon WA) magazine owners have a constitutional interest in property, the government should pay when it takes [away] that property.

I see where you are going with this, and I agree with your premise, but I don't believe the house case is analogous to your examples. Your example presents no exigent circumstance, which was present in the situation with that house.

Its more like a guy stealing a glock and getting in a shootout, but the glock is destroyed by a SWAT bomb. The original owner of the gun cashes in his valuable personal property policy, but wants a Wilson Combat 1911 instead and then comes after the police for the difference after already being compensated for the Glock.

 

[User 1234]

If you guys want to get really p.o.'d about a takings case, read Kelo v. City of New London.
And please don't use this thread for your private debate, some of us are checking it for news about the pending mag bills.

 

[DB is Here]

I see where you are going with this, and I agree with your premise, but I don't believe the house case is analogous to your examples. Your example presents no exigent circumstance, which was present in the situation with that house.

Its more like a guy stealing a glock and getting in a shootout, but the glock is destroyed by a SWAT bomb. The original owner of the gun cashes in his valuable personal property policy, but wants a Wilson Combat 1911 instead and then comes after the police for the difference after already being compensated for the Glock.

Key is...pre or post mag ban?

 

[Sporting Systems]

120 amendments on the bill...this is going down in flames. They can't bring it to a vote or risk a massive delay on all the other crap they want to pass.

 

[TTSX]

I mean, my newest mag had a date code from early 2019 so..... Prove I didn't already have them

 

[gmerkt]

120 amendments on the bill...this is going down in flames. They can't bring it to a vote or risk a massive delay on all the other crap they want to pass.

Well, there's something to be said for having a part-time legislature. The amount of time they have to cause trouble is limited. Some states (like California) have full time legislatures with plenty of time to dream up all kinds of things to bother people.

 

[Mathias]

I believe it's a more purposeful nefarious design with a three pronged attack in which they believe they win either way.

1. They pass gun and mag bans and the people comply. Reduction of resistance.
2. Those that don't want to comply ultimately are forced under ground or leave. Those that stay, will at some point get caught and resist and get killed or comply and become felons. Those that left are no longer a problem and unable to be resistance. In any event, this all reduces resistance.
3. Force a civil war they believe they can quickly and violently suppress, and then use the media to manipulate coverage to show "those crazy gun owners are acting up again, time to ban XYZ for the children." This loops back to more need for more gun control.

And of course since we know incremental gun control is meaningless for public safety, there's always a cry for more gun control. They fail to acknowledge their failed policies aren't working but want more failed policies...

Unless, of course, if WE win the civil war.

 

[awshoot]

nevermind

 

[User 1234]

The buy back part is voluntary.

 

[awshoot]

The buy back part is voluntary.

Yeah -- I wrote before fully reading. Dirty bastards really pulled a fast one by putting that in there to get around the deadline. Freakin' bubblegums.

 

[User 1234]

It looks like it was written days or weeks ago and kept handy for this purpose.

 

[Diamondback]

Yeah, that was their plan, lull us into complacency with 2240 and then the sucker punch as soon as they think our guard's down.

 

[awshoot]

I'm sitting here thinking: can you make a magazine from resin reinforced paper cardstock? You know, print it out, fold along the lines, hold it together with tape, then coat it with plastic resin. Lips would be the most difficult part and would have to be added to the basic shell. The follower could be made from paper slices stacked up and glued together then solidified in resin. Spring wire is cheap. I wonder what the state patrol would pay for those.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I'm sitting here thinking: can you make a magazine from resin reinforced paper cardstock? You know, print it out, fold along the lines, hold it together with tape, then coat it with plastic resin. Lips would be the most difficult part and would have to be added to the basic shell. The follower could be made from paper slices stacked up and glued together then solidified in resin. Spring wire is cheap. I wonder what the state patrol would pay for those.

Why not 3D print them?
A good printer can be had for under $250 and the software is open source and free, so.......
There are already files you can download and print your own pretty easy! Takes about 2 hours or so for each print, but it's a set it and forget it kind of deal!

 

[Caveman Jim]

If a federal judge has ruled CA's magazine ban unconstitutional how wouldn't others suffer the same fate.

Because his decision was overturned by another judge...

 

[GWS]

Because his decision was overturned by another judge...

No, it wasn't overturned
Judge Benitez put a hold on his decision after freedom week because he can control the narrative and his decision to put his own stay pre-empted any appeals and allowed California gun owners to keep their magazines at least as long as the trial is under way.
Judge Benitez is one of the good guys. He has done more for Second Amendment rights than anyone since the McDonald decision If his decision holds it will cover at least the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction and hopefully be the precedent for the entire nation.

 

[User 1234]

Also keep in mind that the Ninth Circuit now has much more balanced appointments than it did two years ago, thanks to Trump. He put people on the bench there who have a history of allegiance to the Constitution and conservative interpretations of the constitution.

 

[Mecanik]

One of the basic principles of law is the "burden of proof" is always on the prosecution.

 

[44Brent]

One of the basic principles of law is the "burden of proof" is always on the prosecution.

Except that in this law, the legislature is reversing things and putting the burder of proof on the gun owner. It seems to me that the provision is like an open invitation for a court to strike the law down.

 

[User 1234]

You can speak freely as long you prove that what you are saying about the government is based on your knowledge prior to the law's effective date. No new speech against the government is allowed.