Oregon, Idaho beat WA on gun rights, says G&A!

[Dave Workman]

Boy, I dunno. Between Ginny and the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, you'd think the whole Pac Nor'west was in the toilet..

Top states for gun rights: Oregon, Idaho beat Washington

Guns & Ammo magazine yesterday posted an on-line rating of where the states stand on gun rights, and surprisingly Washington, where well-financed anti-gunners complain that the laws need to be tightened, is in the bottom third, while Oregon and Idaho are ranked No. 29 and 30, respectively.


<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[mkwerx]

Thankfully we've kept the crazy anti-gunners at bay. They run their yaps but we've still retained the vast majority of our rights. I can't imagine Idaho has much of a serious group of vocal antigunners. Seems the argument there would be "Black rifles vs blued steel and hard wood" or 270 vs 7mm mag...

Washington is getting better - you've now got legal SBR and suppressors - you beat us on the mandatory training vs. simply filling out some paperwork to obtain a CHL. Now you just need legal machine guns, DD's and AOW's and you'll be on par with us. Your state's pre-emption is better than ours - Seattle was made to abide by state laws, where down here the fifedoms like Portland and Salem and Eugene can draft stupid ordinances that fly in the face of state law and get away with it.

It's a damn shame we have to continually fight to keep god given rights - but I think the PNW over all is pretty damn gun friendly compared to what's directly south of us, or over on the east coast.

 

[Coolhandluke]

I thought we could have AOW's in WA. If I'm not mistaken the serbu shorty shotguns are AOW's and they were selling them at wades in Bellvue.

 

[lowly monk]

Thanks Dave.

 

[Bam]

Maybe for now...

Our biggest threat is still outsiders moving into our state and bringing their stupid with them. Portland has already been infected and unfortunately the migration of stupid isn't slowing.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Washington always takes a hit for no SBRs. Since you can now put an "arm brace" on the back of your AR pistol the whole SBR thing does not matter as much. The handgun registration and 5 day waiting period are don't help Washington's standing either.

I wish Oregon had a State preemption like Washington does so the cities would not be a patchwork of open carry laws.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

The Evergreen State lags behind neighboring Oregon and Idaho because both of those states apparently have better right-to-carry provisions

How is that? All WA counties are s"hall issue" and CPL holders can carry loaded pistols anywhere in our vehicles without cases. We can OC loaded guns.

Be interested to hear where we are allegedly behind OR and ID in the CPL provisions. Unfortunately the G&A link goes to a chartless page.

 

[mkwerx]

Washington always takes a hit for no SBRs. Since you can now put an "arm brace" on the back of your AR pistol the whole SBR thing does not matter as much. The handgun registration and 5 day waiting period are don't help Washington's standing either.

I wish Oregon had a State preemption like Washington does so the cities would not be a patchwork of open carry laws.

Didn't Gov. Inslee sign the SBR bill into law, thus allowing SBR's in WA now? I thought that WA used to be no NFA allowed and slowly starting to allow. They've had suppressors for a couple years now, if I"m not mistaken, now it seems like the only thing they can't have is fun-switch guns. Not horrible, considering many other state's gun laws. Guys in Ohio can't have mags over 30 rounds, because a 31+ round mag, per Ohio laws makes a gun a "machine gun". No SureFire 60 rounders or MagPul 40's for Ohio-ans.

But Nick is right - now that the ATF has come out and said the arm brace things can be shouldered with no reprisals legally, who needs to waste $200 and 9-12 months for an SBR, plus the across-state lines transport limitations of same.