Washington SB 552 moves forward

[Wayne]

SB 5552 moving forward. Washington State Legislature

Read More

 

[Diamondback]

GOOD! One of the sponsors is an old family friend, and the changes put a little common sense back into things.

The bad news, if the objectionable parts are "repaired" that takes the impetus off scrapping.

I don't expect it to get past the Seattle-controlled House, or to get past Sh*tweasel Inslee, or to override a veto, but... maybe as a Messaging Action it'll help by showing the fencesitters how "unreasonable" the Bloomingdouches are.

 

[Mr Smith]

good. hope it passes, but regardless of it passing I will continue to willfully and knowingly BREAK this law as it is unjust and 100% insane. Not to mention law enforcement would have to break the law in order to confiscate weapons because a background check was not done on them right then and there before they took possession of the firearm as I doubt many if any LEO's have a FFL. They going to bring a FFL holder to confiscate the weapon if they catch someone letting their friend pop off a few rounds at the range with them?

 

[WALawyer]

I don't understand the language excepting the transfer of a firearm from a background check if the transfer is intended to prevent suicide or self-harm. In what scenario would giving a gun to a person prevent suicide or self-harm? Am I reading it wrong? What am I missing?

good. hope it passes, but regardless of it passing I will continue to willfully and knowingly BREAK this law as it is unjust and 100% insane. Not to mention law enforcement would have to break the law in order to confiscate weapons because a background check was not done on them right then and there before they took possession of the firearm as I doubt many if any LEO's have a FFL. They going to bring a FFL holder to confiscate the weapon if they catch someone letting their friend pop off a few rounds at the range with them?

"This section does not apply to: . . . Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;" RCW 9.41.113(4)(d).

 

[Diamondback]

@WALawyer I think the intent is, if you're thinking of offing yourself and ask a buddy to hold 'em away from you 'til it passes that would be an Exempted Transfer.

 

[WALawyer]

@WALawyer I think the intent is, if you're thinking of offing yourself and ask a buddy to hold 'em away from you 'til it passes that would be an Exempted Transfer.

Yeah, my wife just explained that to me and that makes a lot more sense.

 

[The Heretic]

the section defining a "machine gun" needs a tweak to match federal law, otherwise it will include "binary" triggers which fire on press or release or maybe even just those firearms that fire only on the release of the trigger.

 

[Mr Smith]

the section defining a "machine gun" needs a tweak to match federal law, otherwise it will include "binary" triggers which fire on press or release or maybe even just those firearms that fire only on the release of the trigger.

or how about many of the skilled shooters out there that can fire nearly any semi-auto at 6+ rounds in less than a second.

There's even a vid of an old timer shooting that coonan 1911 style .357 magnum on a shot timer and he unloads 6 rounds from that at 3 targets 2 shots in each target all in less than a second. guess 1911's are machine guns *facepalm*

 

[The Heretic]

or how about many of the skilled shooters out there that can fire nearly any semi-auto at 6+ rounds in less than a second.

There's even a vid of an old timer shooting that coonan 1911 style .357 magnum on a shot timer and he unloads 6 rounds from that at 3 targets 2 shots in each target all in less than a second. guess 1911's are machine guns *facepalm*

That part of the bill has an "and" clause to it, so it has to this, that "and" fire more than 5 shots in a second.

 

[Mr Smith]

That part of the bill has an "and" clause to it, so it has to this, that "and" fire more than 5 shots in a second.

it also says you must press the trigger for each shot...how many people press a trigger unless using those butterfly triggers on a 50BMG or push buttons on a Dillon M134D?

 

[The Heretic]

it also says you must press the trigger for each shot...how many people press a trigger unless using those butterfly triggers on a 50BMG or push buttons on a Dillon M134D?

Those are considered to be the trigger

 

[The Heretic]

Actually, and way off topic, some well designed flash suppressors do suppress the flash.

Somewhere there is a rather technical book dedicated just to the design and effectiveness of various flash suppressors. I cannot remember if I bought it back in my days of being intensely interested in such things - it was rather expensive, I will have to look in my library - but it is out there.

 

[The Heretic]

I was speaking in terms of what is commonly out there and seen ... not some super specialized item.
But that was not my main point.

My main point was that terms are left vague on purpose to fit the needs of the moment.
Andy

And I agree with the point, a lot of people, especially lawmakers, are woefully ignorant of most technology, including firearms.

BTW - a simple mil-spec "bird cage" flash suppressor on an AR, is effective in suppressing flash, it doesn't just redirect it - unless it is overpowered by ammo that doesn't use low flash powder (most mil spec ammo does).

 

[Mr Smith]

Those are considered to be the trigger

thank you captain obvious.

The point was the wording. "press" vs "pull" you don't press a standard trigger, you "pull" it unless you are talking about the two triggers I had mentioned in the post above.

 

[skjos]

How about:
(j) The transfer to a Washington State Concealed Pistol License holder.

 

[Diamondback]

Next round is House Judiciary tomorrow at 1:30... Bring the Rain on the legisvermin!

Particularly...
--Jinkins
--Kilduff
--Rodne
--Muri
--Frame
--Goodman
--Graves
--Haler
--Hansen
--Kirby
--Klippert
--Orwall
--Shea

13 committee members, 6 Republicans who *should* be on board. Jinkins sponsored the House version of this bill, so she should be on board. We really need to keep the pressure on Jinkins particularly to make sure she stays a team player, maybe Kilduff though I don't have high hopes on her. (Her district is the 28th, JBLM/Lakewood/Steilacoom--under Tacoma's thumb for Dems, ditto Kirby from the 29th, which is South Tacoma/Spanaway/Meth Lab Central.) Frame is a write-off, Ballard/Lake City... typical King Kounty Kommunist Kleptocracy leftwinger. Goodman has Totem Lake/Sammamish/Duvall--Duvall is good news, Issaquah-Sammamish area mixed, Totem Lake not so much as part of Bellevue Metro. Orwall is Kent-Des Moines-SeaTac, probably against us. Hansen is Bainbridge Island ( ) - Silverdale-Bangor-Poulsbo, the Peninsula.

Sadly, I do not see Ambulance Chasing Suckweasel signing this, nor the Legislature overriding a veto. INITIATIVE TIME!

 

[Caveman Jim]

You can bet your AZZ that they ARE going to pass some sort of anti-gun BS law so the anti-gun nutz will see that they are doing something if nothing!!!

Keep up the pressure on these douche nozzels!!!

 

[Diamondback]

5552 is one for OUR side, though--may not restore "anyone anytime anywhere" private sale, but gives the C&R FFL a purpose again and formally clarifies that the gun staying under your supervision doesn't need the full BGC BS.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Well I'll be crawlin back into my cave then....

 

[slimmer13]

Meh, they take a mile, offer to give back an inch, and I'm supposed to be happy or grateful or something? They can shove this thing as far as I'm concerned.