Washington WA Magazine Ban Bill PREFILED - Link to comment below

[Rkangel]

The irony is that they don't seem to listen to their constituents or the voters, they don't seem to represent anything but their own interests/wallets, yet they still expect their edicts to be followed to the letter...and they still want to call this a representative democracy...

But I feel so much better after receiving their canned auto-response about supporting the constitution.

 

[HaveGun]

Sent my comments in. All three of my reps are all Republicans and already won't support it. Need to split the state in two and let the communists keep Seattle.

 

[AMT]

Just sent mine too!

"Everyone understands that something needs to be done, but not SB 5078. Taking away my rights as a responsible firearm owner and putting more restrictions on me is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I urge you to vote NO on this bill and instead propose a new bill holding the criminals accountable for their actions – not add more restrictions to my rights because of their bad deeds. This bill is no different to banning mid-size to large vehicles because drunk drivers cause more fatalities than sober drivers."

Rep. Paul Harris replied with, "I agree."

 

[HaveGun]

When I clicked on the tab "Comment on this bill", I assumed it was a link to a general comment section on the bill that would be viewable by all reps. Instead, it only went to my reps.

Wondering if there is a way for all of the East side reps to see all the opposition to this bill. Not that they care, but seems like 20,000 or 50,000 comments criticizing this bill would be more effective than my local reps stating during testimony that they received overwhelming opposition to this bill.

 

[1Asterisk]

Because :
- it's not final law yet , just a bill in committee.
- the 9th circuit decision was not a full panel.
- even if upheld the 9th circuit decision will surely go to SCOTUS for appeal.
- the CA law was more restrictive then the proposed WA Bill, so WA law may pass the burden test if passed when the CA law did not.
- CA may pull a NYC move and amend the law before the full panel or SCOTUS hearing and this make it moot .

Regardless any of those things, the Ninth Circuit ruling allowing possession is current [until overturned] and any 'law' that may be passed to the contrary, by any state within the 9th Circuit is null and void from the get go, IMO.

 

[LibertyNews]

Thanks for posting these. If there are any more added could you make sure to add them with a note at the top post?

Also, I note that the magazine ban is at the request of our glorious Attorney General. It's great to have someone in office who has such disdain for the constitution that he'd work against his own constituent's rights while taking their money.

 

[shoengine]

Because Charles Whitman didn't kill anyone with a bolt action, and there couldn't have been a mass shooting in LV if the guy used a .300 Win Mag instead?

That's the most ridiculous logic. Evil is in the heart. Semi autos, standard mags, bolt actions, gasoline, box trucks, etc are just tools. You can't legislate the will to commit evil acts out of someone.

I was being sarcastic. Apparently saying banning anything with a clip or magazine wasn't ridiculous enough!

 

[bentoncity]

Instead, it only went to my reps.
Wondering if there is a way for all of the East side reps to see all the opposition to this bill..

Yes there is. It's via email. You'll have to compile the addresses from the legislative web site(s).
However, I suspect those other legislators won't care as much since they don't directly represent you.
Now if EVERY person on this forum would 'comment', that's a LOT of opposition. More so as it's coming via the govt link which indicates the sender took the time to review the bill as well as the effort to comment.

Dan

 

[chipotle]

Yes there is. It's via email. You'll have to compile the addresses from the legislative web site(s).
However, I suspect those other legislators won't care as much since they don't directly represent you.
Now if EVERY person on this forum would 'comment', that's a LOT of opposition. More so as it's coming via the govt link which indicates the sender took the time to review the bill as well as the effort to comment.

Dan

Theres a string of emails for relavent lawmakers (some who recently won reelection by 70 votes) on the OP

 

[tkdguy]

I think that the voters that elected these antigun legislators are really smart [?]; and the same have done such a good job in running Seattle and the state.

 

[Tony617]

I sent my state senator and representatives emails.

 

[zcap]

FPC has a well written email blast on SB-5078, just enter your address and hit submit to mail your reps. No writing, no finding you reps, no excuses.

OPPOSE SB-5078

 

[American123]

Wait a tick... why do Hill and Joe get first name treatment but Don doesn't?

I hate to say it, but even 10 round mags will enable mass shootings. The only fix for this is banning all semi-automatic weapons. And anything with a mag or a clip. Bam. No mass shootings.

So there was never mass murder before semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines?

 

[WAW44]

Where is the text of their email blast? Do you get a choice on sending it or not? It would be nice to see what is being sent in my name before giving them all the details, no?

FPC has a well written email blast on SB-5078, just enter your address and hit submit to mail your reps. No writing, no finding you reps, no excuses.

OPPOSE SB-5078

 

[bshnt2015]

Thanks for the updates.

 

[bentoncity]

Where is the text of their email blast? Do you get a choice on sending it or not? It would be nice to see what is being sent in my name before giving them all the details, no?

Here's the text.. It shows up after inserting your name, address..etc. & clicking next..
Carry on..

Dan

I am writing to you today to express my opposition to Washington Senate Bill 5078, which would criminalize the possession, manufacture, acquisition, or disposition of so-called "high-capacity" firearms magazines. Not only is the law unconstitutional, it would have a negative impact on our state economy and would have no discernible effect on criminal activity.

The right to bear arms necessarily includes the right to bear effective arms. While SB 5078 purports to increase public safety by eliminating the ability of Washingtonians to lawfully possess commonly owned and purchased firearms magazines, it ignores the fact that the vast majority of modern firearms are sold with or use magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, whether they are handguns or rifles. The reason why these firearms are designed to accept these magazines is simple: no matter how well-trained someone may be, they routinely miss shots in self-defense scenarios.

By implementing a magazine capacity ban, SB 5078 would have a negative impact on the state economy by reducing dealer inventories - the state and the military cannot, or rather, will not, compensate for the number of sales that would be lost. Magazine and firearms sales often go hand in hand, and a recent survey by the NSSF shows that firearms retail contributed $232.5 million in annual economic output. Restricting the ability of dealers to sell commonly owned magazines would have a demonstrable impact on taxable revenue for the state.

The commonality of magazines and the ease with which they can be produced means that anyone intent on using them for criminal activity will find them if they desire to do so; this bill would simply serve as a barrier to adequate self-defense implements for law-abiding Washingtonians.

For all of these reasons, I urge you to join me in opposing Senate Bill 5078. Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

[LibertyNews]

Got a response from Tim Sheldon(D):

Thank you for contacting me regarding HB 1164/SB 5078, prohibiting large capacity magazines.

House Bill 1164 and Senate Bill 5078 is another attempt by urban legislators to impose their views on rural counties, We grew up with firearms and have a deep and strong respect for the Second Amendment to our US Constitution. Bills lik
e them, if passed, will chip away at your Second Amendment rights, and open the door for more unconstitutional legislation. I am adamantly opposed to these bills. However, there are strong democrat majorities this year that are overreact
ing to what is happening on the National scene.


Tim

 

[1371JarHead]

Thank you for your message and for sharing your concerns regarding SB 5078, which would ban the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines. The continued possession of legally-owned magazines would be permitted. I am a co-sponsor of the Senate bill. We are holding a hearing on it later this morning in the Senate Law & Justice Committee, which I chair.



Although both the second amendment to the U.S. constitution and Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution protect the individual right to bear arms, those rights are not unlimited. As with other cherished constitutional rights, such as speech or assembly, the right to bear arms can be subject to reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner of exercise. The same principle that allows us to ban the possession of machine guns, 3D printed weapons, and bump stocks (all of which are banned under existing Washington law) would permit the legislature to ban the possession of high capacity magazines. There is strong evidence that nearly every mass shooting event has involved the use of high-capacity magazines. I have not heard a compelling claim that the magazines are necessary for any legitimate civilian purpose.



Would it make a difference to you if the bill were changed to apply only to magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds?



Best wishes, Jamie





Senator Jamie Pedersen

43rd Legislative District

[email protected]

pronouns: he, him, his



Olympia Office

JAC 235

P.O. Box 40443

Olympia, WA 98504-0443

(360) 786-7628

 

[1371JarHead]

Thank you for your message and for sharing your concerns regarding SB 5078, which would ban the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines. The continued possession of legally-owned magazines would be permitted. I am a co-sponsor of the Senate bill. We are holding a hearing on it later this morning in the Senate Law & Justice Committee, which I chair.



Although both the second amendment to the U.S. constitution and Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution protect the individual right to bear arms, those rights are not unlimited. As with other cherished constitutional rights, such as speech or assembly, the right to bear arms can be subject to reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner of exercise. The same principle that allows us to ban the possession of machine guns, 3D printed weapons, and bump stocks (all of which are banned under existing Washington law) would permit the legislature to ban the possession of high capacity magazines. There is strong evidence that nearly every mass shooting event has involved the use of high-capacity magazines. I have not heard a compelling claim that the magazines are necessary for any legitimate civilian purpose.



Would it make a difference to you if the bill were changed to apply only to magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds?



Best wishes, Jamie





Senator Jamie Pedersen

43rd Legislative District

[email protected]

pronouns: he, him, his



Olympia Office

JAC 235

P.O. Box 40443

Olympia, WA 98504-0443

(360) 786-7628

Its just a canned response

 

[WAW44]

It may be canned, it is better than outright "f u" . The 15 round limit it at least an olive branch ... as it is .

Its just a canned response