WA Attorney General wants AWB

[ponderingturtle]

Surely you understand that banning a thing usually comes with penalties to actually discourage it. Possession of a thing like a rifle magazine is a victimless crime. I'm sure David Gregory thought so when he flouted the law on his TV show (Meet the Press) and avoided arrest just because he was somebody and not a nobody.

Magazine capacity is not irrelevant at all.

Possessing anything is a victimless crime, there are still a lot of things it is illegal to posses.

 

[ponderingturtle]

1) Most gun legislation like this creates object-possession crimes where none existed previously for possession of the same object.

2) Magazine limit laws limit the new sales of new magazines. Generally the existing pool of manufactured product already on shelves is allowed to be sold but not replaced with new merch.

3) There is absolutely zero enforcement mechanism for mag limit laws in actual practice. Shooting ranges might tell you not to use them but aren't going to confiscate them and are unlikely to rat out customers to the cops. In Colorado if a county sheriff at the range sees a high capacity magazine they tell the user to leave it at home. There are no confiscation requirements or legal mechanisms to enforce the law. As such, it's useless legislation.

So the problem is that the laws are not enforced by the police how do we get them to change their views and actually enforce these laws?

 

[Giz]

Why are people who argue magazine capacity is irrelevant so upset by banning high capacity magazines?

I think you've misstated the argument, in order to try and transfer the obligation of making a constructive case to the other side.

If someone believes that magazine capacity is irrelevant, then they will surely believe that, in a free country, magazines of all sizes should be legal. (Because the government should only ban things that (i) cause appreciable public harm, (ii) banning prevents significantly more harm than any loss of liberty).

It's therefore perfectly consistent for someone to think either:
- Magazine capacity matters, therefore large capacity should be banned
or,
- Magazine capacity doesn't matter*, and bans should therefore be resisted on civil liberty grounds



* or doesn't matter significantly, compared to the loss of freedom entailed by a ban

 

[BStrong]

Hmm, makes me think the law has hardly ever been enforced. Me thinks only as an additional charge against a shooter, not prosecuting responsible gun owners? Is that "equal protection"?

It's not only enforced, the problems that developed with the original law led to a second law and it's complicated enough that there have been many arrests of individuals and seizures of firearms that were in fact legal, but it's generally OK since after the arrested individual drops some money on competent counsel and fights their way through the system they are cleared, and they might even get their piece back.

The next round of legislation wrt AW's goes into effect on 1 Jan. will just bring it's own set of problems for firearms owners - some jurisdictions are quick to inform their officers about whats what, others, not so much. Some jurisdictions take the position that if they find someone in possession of a black rifle they arrest first and let the DA sort out the issue, some jurisdictions actually educate their officers as to the finer points of the law wrt AW's - it's not too complicated, see the flow chart at the link:

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

Sacramento PD actually took the time to educate their officers on one subject via a simple bulletin:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Sacramento-PD-OLL_Training_Bulletin-2008-11-18.pdf

But the other major metro's couldn't be bothered - if they make a bad arrest and they have to lay out tax money to settle a claim, no big deal.

 

[BStrong]

I think you've misstated the argument, in order to try and transfer the obligation of making a constructive case to the other side.

If someone believes that magazine capacity is irrelevant, then they will surely believe that, in a free country, magazines of all sizes should be legal. (Because the government should only ban things that (i) cause appreciable public harm, (ii) banning prevents significantly more harm than any loss of liberty).

It's therefore perfectly consistent for someone to think either:
- Magazine capacity matters, therefore large capacity should be banned
or,
- Magazine capacity doesn't matter*, and bans should therefore be resisted on civil liberty grounds

* or doesn't matter significantly, compared to the loss of freedom entailed by a ban

The question I always like to ask is if the supporter of a mag cap ban law can explain what the difference is between two legal ten round mag and one "high-capacity" 15 round mag, and why does it matter?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

So the problem is that the laws are not enforced by the police how do we get them to change their views and actually enforce these laws?

Magazine limits are unenforceable because there is no control point in the system to enforce the ban, other than preventing new sales. The existing pool of them remains in private ownership, undisturbed by regulation.

The problem is that magazine limit laws are knee-jerk feel good legislation that never addresses the actual issues, and pay passing them legislators wasted time they could have used passing something efficacious, making them counter-productive to actually preventing shootings.

 

[fuelair]

Why are people who argue magazine capacity is irrelevant so upset by banning high capacity magazines?

Because they do not want to have to reload as often. When going on the range (or if a really lousy shot hunting) they want to have done loading on a rainy/snowy/real humid day so they do not need to do more than switch magazines while having fun shooting.

 

[fuelair]

Magazine limits are unenforceable because there is no control point in the system to enforce the ban, other than preventing new sales. The existing pool of them remains in private ownership, undisturbed by regulation.

The problem is that magazine limit laws are knee-jerk feel good legislation that never addresses the actual issues, and pay passing them legislators wasted time they could have used passing something efficacious, making them counter-productive to actually preventing shootings.

This!!!

 

[a_unique_person]

This is why acronyms can be problematic.

I read "WA Attorney General wants AWB" as being "Western Australia wants to join the AWB (Afrikaaner White Brotherhood)", which if you know anything about Perth, makes perfect sense.

Americans should learn that state acronyms are not global.

AWB is the Australian Wheat Board, silly.

 

[Aepervius]

Ranb you really missed the fun title "WA AG wants AWB " .

 

[fuelair]

Because they do not want to have to reload as often. When going on the range (or if a really lousy shot hunting) they want to have done loading on a rainy/snowy/real humid day so they do not need to do more than switch magazines while having fun shooting.

Given my history here some may think I am being /trying to be funny in the above. I am not. It generally takes time to load cartridges into a magazine - the more you can put in and the better the quality of the magazine, the (generally) longer time and greater effort it takes to load it fully. Thus the more wasted time at the range. And for hunting, the important part is for how little time it takes between shots. In both situations a higher capacity magazine is preferable. And the number of people using same to shoot people in the US is very, very, very small.

I have no problem with persons with psychological/intellectual difficulties or criminals (particularly but not exclusively violent ones) not being allowed most weapons at all.

 

[theprestige]

Ranb you really missed the fun title "WA AG wants AWB " [emoji14].

"WA AG: AWB"

 

[Airfix]

It's a shame the US government can't amend the constitution to require safe childproof storage of guns, or introduce a functional licence system.