Washington Washington AG supports ban of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines

[defending fathers 1787]

Second Amendment Foundation
And I don't particularly care what a lot of people say but the NRA is paramount for our 2A cause.
Also, it is up to the citizens of this (or any other state) to voice their displeasure at the proposals of their elected officials. I will not leave the balance of my rights to anyone but myself if I did not even make a stand or voice my displeasure with my elected officials.
Lets not be complacent as we have been in the past, this is THE time to stand our ground.

"You are either with us...as Americans. Or, You are against us. There is no IN BETWEEN."

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'" JFK

Don't "Barney Fife" us down to the last bullet!

We can not let the Attorney General of WA state "Barney Fife" us down on our ammunition, gun and magazine choices for ourselves and our families.

--Gun Owners need to delay their next purchase ammo or gun purchase and use those funds to support the Second Amendment Foundation Second Amendment Foundation
--use the AG contact form as well.
--Leave a good comment at the Second Amendment Foundation after joining.

If the NRA notices an increase at SAF in the Pacific NW, then they will start paying attention this time. We need a couple of thousand of new members to step up. I went all in this time and I will get at least a few others to join this week.
Actions not Words.

 

[Nathan PNW]

Every firearms owner should have memberships in the NRA, GOA and the Second Amendment Foundation. It's the only way to protect your rights!

The NRA hasn't been very helpful these past few years in Washington.

 

[GlockFan1990]

The NRA hasn't been very helpful these past few years in Washington.

Nor have they been for Oregon ether. Our only true ally is the Oregon Firearms Federation and to get people to vote pro-gun regardless of how they fall when it comes to other issues.

 

[Wayne]

Well, got a reply to my e-mail, of course it is just a form reply.
"
Thank you for sharing your opinion about the Attorney General's request that the Legislature consider a bill to ban the sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines in Washington. Before it becomes law, the bill must be introduced in the Legislature, passed by both chambers, and signed by the Governor. We appreciate your feedback on this important issue.


Kindly,

Office of the Washington State Attorney General

Public Records

& Constituent Services Unit"

It is like they must consider anyone who had such a negative opinion of the whole idea has no clue how the government works.

 

[JO JO]

you all need to read this stuff it is not about the AR it includes all firearms including shotguns and handguns , rights taken away for any crime even if not found guilty get arrested any crime guilty or not loose you rights , we are being set up in a bad way folks their is a big picture here , they really need to be voted out !
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...t-weapons-ban/

HB 2354 - 2015-16

http://www.petition2congress.com/929...-confiscation/

http://www.progressivestoday.com/201...dern-firearms/

 

[Wayne]

The bill you linked to was the one introduced at the beginning of this year and went no where. We talked about it here. HB 2354 - Banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines

 

[AOTAC]

Don't forget, Sen. David Frockt (Democrat) Washington State Legislature - Member Email and Sen. Kevin Ranker (Democrat) Washington State Legislature - Member Email are working with Ferguson to craft the legislation.

Be sure to thank them as well.



I'm no great letter writer but if you want use parts of this and modify to your liking, you have my permission:



The WA State Attorney General fails to state all relevant facts when deciding to infringe on the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution by creating new restrictions on firearms in a noble attempt to save lives.

While I agree with the intent, it's misleading to use only one example of a mass shooting attempt(Seattle Pacific University) that failed to proceed due the heroic actions of a fellow student. Shouldn't we look at other examples of mass shootings before deciding whether or not a gun restricting law would truly make us safer?

It should be noted in Mr. Ferguson's proposed bill that "Gun free zones" are a target of choice for mass public attackers and terrorists alike. The Orlando Pulse nightclub (June 12, 2016), the San Bernardino county building (December 2, 2015), Umpqua Community College (October 1, 2015), the Lafayette movie theater (July 23, 2015), Fort Hood (April 2, 2014), the DC Navy Yard (September 16, 2013), Sandy Hook Elementary School (December 14, 2012), the Aurora movie theater (July 20, 2012), and Virginia Tech (April 16, 2007) were all "gun free zones" and were chosen to inflict mass casualties - thanks due in part to laws enacted by local and federal government officials that dream to make their citizens safer by disarming them.

One might also mention how much safer Illinois and California are in comparison to Washington State. As educated citizens, the facts may lead us to believe that if we enact similar laws to these states, we may well find ourselves going down the aforementioned State's troubled paths. To simplify: Stricter guns laws do not equate to less gun violence.

The facts speak louder than the opinion of one state attorney general. His employers (The People) demand to know the truth. If the United States Constitution weren't clear enough, the State Constitution of Washington decrees: "SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired." These new restrictions as proposed by Mr. Ferguson are (at their most innocent) a misguided attempt to do just that. At their worst, criminally misleading and impairing the rights of the good citizens of Washington State.

 

[MisDav]

According to this page [http://www.injurytriallawyer.com/blog/washington-state-dui-statistics-infographic.cfm], between 2007 and 2010 there were 754 DUI fatalities in Washington State. The AG might also want to look into banning certain kinds of cars.

I am not sure why by the link you posted was didn't work right. But I find the page. Here is the correct link: Washington State DUI Statistics [Infographic]. The info graphic was posted by a Seattle drunk driving accident attorney law firm.

 

[Baseacegoku]

I am not sure why by the link you posted was didn't work right. But I find the page. Here is the correct link: Washington State DUI Statistics [Infographic]. The info graphic was posted by a Seattle drunk driving accident attorney law firm.

Probably because this thread is 2 years old?

 

[Jonnyuma]

Probably because this thread is 2 years old?

Probably more likely due to it being over THREE yrs old...

 

[awshoot]

Since it's been resurrected, my recent favorite link is the CDC's alcohol page: CDC - Fact Sheets-Alcohol Use And Health - Alcohol

That's 88,000 deaths per year. 2x the number of gun deaths including suicides, and about 6x the number of gun deaths excluding suicides. Given how dangerous alcohol is, don't you think we should have a Constitutional amendment to ban it? That would make the world so much safer and would never have any unintended consequences. I think we should try it! Think of the children! Even one life!

 

[ma96782]

".....shall not be infrienged."

Not understanding......that it means what it says.......is HIS problem.

Aloha, Mark

 

[awshoot]

".....shall not be infrienged."

Not understanding......that it means what it says.......is HIS problem.

Aloha, Mark

Sadly, as we saw last legislative session, it's our problem too. ;-(

 

[nammac]

Since it's been resurrected, my recent favorite link is the CDC's alcohol page: CDC - Fact Sheets-Alcohol Use And Health - Alcohol

That's 88,000 deaths per year. 2x the number of gun deaths including suicides, and about 6x the number of gun deaths excluding suicides. Given how dangerous alcohol is, don't you think we should have a Constitutional amendment to ban it? That would make the world so much safer and would never have any unintended consequences. I think we should try it! Think of the children! Even one life!

Well, I understand this is tongue in cheek sarcasm, but we did try this and the only thing that happened is organized crime was the channel for alcohol... They'll most likely never go after it again. Maybe organized crime needs to be the conduit that all guns are purchased through and the associated violence. Then perhaps, they'll back off the Second Amendment... Just a thought...

 

[awshoot]

Well, I understand this is tongue in cheek sarcasm, but we did try this and the only thing that happened is organized crime was the channel for alcohol... They'll most likely never go after it again. Maybe organized crime needs to be the conduit that all guns are purchased through and the associated violence. Then perhaps, they'll back off the Second Amendment... Just a thought...

Exactly -- prohibitions make any problem one seeks to solve, worse not better.

I do think it is telling though, that people aren't running around with their hair on fire over alcohol even though it is many times more dangerous than firearms.

 

[nammac]

Exactly -- prohibitions make any problem one seeks to solve, worse not better.

I do think it is telling though, that people aren't running around with their hair on fire over alcohol even though it is many times more dangerous than firearms.

Alcohol is so socially accepted it's not the enemy any longer. Same with illicit drugs, socially accepted. Guns are the target, they're the current public enemy #1.

just for the record, drunk drivers should be dealt with as harshly as some politicians want to deal with gun owners. But it's a fine, a slap on the wrist and out to drunk drive another day...