Democrat gun control victory in WA Senate

[Old man]

.
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . .

C'mon Ranb, get serious.

Nobody in their right mind goes deer hunting with an 18" barrel.

Right now, at MidwayUSA, the 5 most popular Remington 870 slug barrels are 18.5" long.

http://www.midwayusa.com/find?newcategorydimensionid=18180

 

[Ranb]

That is significantly more reduction than anything I was aware of, but it still means that a rifle (140 - 180 decibels) is still going to be in the 110-150dB range which will cause damage especially with repeated exposure (a day at the range). With my ear muffs the sound never exceeds 85dB

What brand ear muffs do you use? The best ones I've seen reduce noise by about 30 decibels. The osha noise limit for continuous noise is 85 decibel, for short duration impulse noise the limit is much higher

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

.
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . .

So this is the new standard for evidence to support a claim now?

.Nobody in their right mind goes deer hunting with an 18" barrel.

Not even with a rifled slug barrel? Why not?

.Nobody goes trap shooting with anything shorter than a 24" or 26".

Is recreational use of shotguns limited to trap? What about 3-gun shoots?

.Nobody but a loopy survivalist installs an extra full choke on an 14".

How many loopy survivalists do you know? The SBS I've seen with chokes were not owned by loopy people.

.This is what I really hate about the pro-gun crowd......Why can't you just come out and address the situation directly?

I was already very direct. I want a short barreled shotgun to enhance my gun collection.

.Let's face facts here: Short barrelled shotguns are designed, manufactured, and used with one specific purpose in mind: killing and incapacitating humans at short range and in confined space. That's what they're for. It's what they are intended to do. They are very useful for doing that and not much else.

Then why is it that you can't come up with a single case of a person using one of the kinds of guns I'm trying to ease restrictions on to kill?

.There are EXCELLENT reasons to allow people SBS possession for home defense......

I don't intend to use an SBS for defense. I never intended my list of reasons to cover anything anyone else might come up with.

.But hunting? Sport shooting? . . . C'mon. These things are defensive weapons, period. Own up to that and you might just make your point.

I've never denied they can be defensive weapons.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I heard that if a gun kills a liberal lawmaker, then it goes to HELL (so it can shoot more liberals).

Probably not. Do you understand that it is the liberal Democrats that are leading the way in easing restrictions on firearm possession in WA? Maybe if you were more concerned with critical thinking instead of "satire" you might figure this out.

Ranb

 

[Trakar]

What brand ear muffs do you use? The best ones I've seen reduce noise by about 30 decibels. The osha noise limit for continuous noise is 85 decibel, for short duration impulse noise the limit is much higher

Ranb

Caldwell e-max muffs, the microphones cut out for a brief period when exposed to any thing over 85dB

yeah, I pretty much only wear these when at the range. When hunting it depends upon whether I am stationary (stand/blind) or stalking. When stationary I have ear-plugs (but I rarely use them to be honest), when stalking I like to have my ears open as it helps in both finding the prey and warning of any other predators in the area. When hunting I rarely fire more than 2-3 rounds a day and the only time I have noticed any hearing problems seems to be when my wife is talking to me,...but I don't think that is caused by my hunting exposures.

 

[Trakar]

Well, maybe if you guys weren't so delicious and perfectly marbled...

Well given that Canadians are notoriously poor shots and not many Americans put themselves in situations where they are likely to encounter wild bears on their own turf (unless they go on hunting trips to Canada!), that seems plausible.

Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes your Canadian guide gets you....the coin flip of hunting north of the border.

 

[Xulld]

.
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . .

C'mon Ranb, get serious.

Nobody in their right mind goes deer hunting with an 18" barrel. Nobody goes trap shooting with anything shorter than a 24" or 26". Nobody but a loopy survivalist installs an extra full choke on an 14".

I can grab a baseball bat and go play golf with it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be an idiot for doing so.

This is what I really hate about the pro-gun crowd. You've got lots of GOOD arguments to make your case with. Instead of using those you guys try to end-run the opposition with this kind of BS about needing an SBS for hunting and sport shooting and (incredibly enough) Grizzly Bears. Doing that reflects poorly on both the argument and the arguer. Why can't you just come out and address the situation directly?

Let's face facts here: Short barrelled shotguns are designed, manufactured, and used with one specific purpose in mind: killing and incapacitating humans at short range and in confined space. That's what they're for. It's what they are intended to do. They are very useful for doing that and not much else.

Why do you need to dance around those facts with these forced arguments about hunting, blah, blah, blah? You sound like an anti-abortionist claiming that clinic standards and admitting requirements are there "to protect the life of the mother". We all know that isn't the point with those kind of laws. We also know that skeet shooting isn't the point of an SBS.

There are EXCELLENT reasons to allow people SBS possession for home defense. If you present those reasons in an honest and realistic way you'd find both gun advocates and control advocates might just get behind you on it. Allowing SBS possession actually makes sense from the point of view of most gun control advocates. It certainly makes sense to me. I'd sign on to that cause in a second. If you guys would just come out with honest and forthright arguments you'd win the day by bridging the gap between the sides.

But hunting? Sport shooting? . . . C'mon. These things are defensive weapons, period. Own up to that and you might just make your point.

. . . and here we see an excellent example of a narrative completely devoid of facts.

Class please note how only naked assertions are used to support the conclusions, and that any questions asked are ignored.

 

[Ranb]

Class please note how only naked assertions are used to support the conclusions, and that any questions asked are ignored.

Par for the course on an anti-gun forum.

Ranb

 

[BStrong]

.
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . .

C'mon Ranb, get serious.

Nobody in their right mind goes deer hunting with an 18" barrel. Nobody goes trap shooting with anything shorter than a 24" or 26". Nobody but a loopy survivalist installs an extra full choke on an 14".

I can grab a baseball bat and go play golf with it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be an idiot for doing so.

This is what I really hate about the pro-gun crowd. You've got lots of GOOD arguments to make your case with. Instead of using those you guys try to end-run the opposition with this kind of BS about needing an SBS for hunting and sport shooting and (incredibly enough) Grizzly Bears. Doing that reflects poorly on both the argument and the arguer. Why can't you just come out and address the situation directly?

Let's face facts here: Short barrelled shotguns are designed, manufactured, and used with one specific purpose in mind: killing and incapacitating humans at short range and in confined space. That's what they're for. It's what they are intended to do. They are very useful for doing that and not much else.

Why do you need to dance around those facts with these forced arguments about hunting, blah, blah, blah? You sound like an anti-abortionist claiming that clinic standards and admitting requirements are there "to protect the life of the mother". We all know that isn't the point with those kind of laws. We also know that skeet shooting isn't the point of an SBS.

There are EXCELLENT reasons to allow people SBS possession for home defense. If you present those reasons in an honest and realistic way you'd find both gun advocates and control advocates might just get behind you on it. Allowing SBS possession actually makes sense from the point of view of most gun control advocates. It certainly makes sense to me. I'd sign on to that cause in a second. If you guys would just come out with honest and forthright arguments you'd win the day by bridging the gap between the sides.

But hunting? Sport shooting? . . . C'mon. These things are defensive weapons, period. Own up to that and you might just make your point.

First of all, I've been at this and first hand involved with NFA weapons and devices going back to before the GCA '68, and I've never run into anyone making the argument that modern SBS's and SBR's are designed for hunting, but here's the thing; contrary to Miller, SBS's and SBR's were and are used by the militia and the military - from the Revolutionary war to today, so SBS's and SBR's possibly would be no different than any other firearm had the Miller court had that information in front of them. Since both Layton and Miller (defendants) were not represented before the court, that argument wasn't made.

Prior to and after the NFA '34, Winchester and Marlin both made lever action rifles with barrels under 16" in length specifically for hunting, generically referred to as "Trapper" models, and you can find many of these rifles listed today in the Federal Curio and relic list as exempt from the NFA, as well as many shotguns that were manufactured with barrel lengths under 18" it was only the passage of the NFA '34 that created the terms "Short barreled Rifle or Shotgun." These types were considered no different than their long barreled cousins.

Contrary to your assertion. short barreled shotguns and rifles weren't primarily designed for CQC purposes. They were designed for ease of carry (weight) and ease of storage (length) even folding stock weapons of the WWII era forward weren't primarily designed for CQC, they were designed for airborne or armored vehicle use where size and length are considerations for simple transport and storage - you couldn't put as many M1 Garands inside an armored vehicle as you could M1A1 folding stock carbines and M3 or M3A1 SMG's. Airborne troops on D day found out the hard way that the weapon retention/protection cases they had weren't up to the job of keeping a troop and his Garand or BAR together, but guys with carbines had a better chance to have kept their piece on their gear during the jump.

Even federal gun laws on folding or collapsible stock weapons recognize that the stock configuration is a consideration of storage, not intended use, and that's why under federal law overall length is measured with the stock in the open position, not the folded or collapsed condition (although state laws, including California, may be different)

As far as using an SBS or an SBR for home defense, it would be ugly work...ugly on the ears.

I've fired all sorts of short barreled rifles over the years, both outside in the open, outside on designated ranges, and indoors with and without ear protection, and it's not fun under most circumstances. I have less experience with shotguns because there's really less call for that type of piece, but they're not fun either. Put a good can on them and it's a different story, but just sticking with a 16" barrel is cheaper and legal w/o involvement with the NFA considerations.

They are a great tool as Personal Defense Weapons for vehicle crews or drivers, air crews, etc. but as a home defense weapon, not so much.

A minimum barrel length carbine (16" or over) may be good medicine for rural property owners with long LE response times, but having a piece with a barrel 1.5" shorter (or more) wouldn't make the difference in a fight.

As far as any argument about bear protection etc, going to a Marlin Guide Gun in 45/70 or .450 Marlin with the 16" barrel is as good as it gets, unless one wants to drop the cash on a custom lever in .500 S. & W. Mag. (Me likey) but there no reason for a guy to pack an HK 51 or Shorty FAL up in bear country when the Guide Gun will settle any issues that come up at 1/4 the price and no tax stamp.

So where does that leave us?

Collectors that want unusual pieces.

Outside of the shorty AR platforms and Krink AK platform variations all the 7.62 NATO shorties are custom deals that were never manufactured in that configuration by the OEM's themselves, and if you're shooting for fun w/ hearing protection and/or a can they're great fun - w/o a can they create the biggest muzzle blasts most anyone that hasn't been in the military will ever hear outside of a visit to Knob Creek, but it gives spectators a chance to laugh at you and your little ugly howitzer. From a ballistics pov, they're pretty much useless. In 7.62 NATO you're looking at barrel twists of either 1 in 10 (custom) or 1 in 12 (common standard) so if you have the common 10 or 11 inch barrel used on most custom jobs, that projectile is barely stabilized at the muzzle - HK platforms with the standard HK barrel cut down to the 9" length the HK guys favor can expect 100 yard targets with as many keyholes as bullet holes.

None of this stops people from wanting these, this example is a registered transferable F/A, hence the price:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=392760734

Here's a pistol version that sidesteps the NFA:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=395701880

And a garden variety factory built example:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=396284133

None of those pieces are likely to ever end up as crime guns, especially the NFA versions, and the only reason to regulate possession past standard NFA requirements is that in restricting them, it makes a given constituency happy without actually accomplishing anything other than feel good legislation.

Kind of like when right-wing nuts go after gay marriage.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Well, maybe if you guys weren't so delicious and perfectly marbled...

Contrary to popular misconception, there are a great many of us who are too lean for such purposes. So I say... please, please, hunt carefully.

I'll be over here... taking cover behind this sapling.

 

[Ranb]

Back in 2013 I wrote to the HB2319-1994 authors to to determine why they felt the need to place additional restrictions on possession of short barreled rifles by civilians and police. I got replies from all three authors, but only one offered up any kind of explanation. Judge Marlin Appelwick (former Representative) claimed in his reply;

In 1994 there was immense interest in reducing violence. Much of the pressure on the legislature involved two issues: guns and youth. As you know, any discussion of limitations on access to firearms can be heated from many perspectives. We undertook a review of existing firearms regulations and attempted two things: a cleanup/update of the statutes and some modest additional regulations to dampen the cries for major restrictions.

Since contraband short barreled rifles were already illegal, prohibiting new possession by law abiding adults was not going to affect the youth violence problem at all. In fact he was not able to recall anyone who wanted these firearms further restricted. Other than the budgeting for educational programs and increased policing, this bill was the poster child for useless, feel-good, good for nothing gun ban legislation.

Ranb

 

[Cain]

Probably not. Do you understand that it is the liberal Democrats that are leading the way in easing restrictions on firearm possession in WA? Maybe if you were more concerned with critical thinking instead of "satire" you might figure this out.

Pretty snooty words coming from someone who has more than once raised cluelessness to an art form. I'm not offended though.

 

[Ranb]

Pretty snooty words coming from someone who has more than once raised cluelessness to an art form. I'm not offended though.

I see you do fail to understand. Do you have anything to back up your claim or should I just chalk this post up to more of your trolling/insults/satire?

I've been having a difficult time finding many people who oppose this bill. So far I have two Senators (1 Rep, 1 Dem) and one Democrat Representative in Olympia telling me they don't support the bill. The gun control groups in the state refuse to speak out against it also. The police want the law changed and are sending a rep to the hearing tomorrow to support. What problem do you have with allowing registration of short barreled rifles?

Ranb

 

[Cain]

I see you do fail to understand. Do you have anything to back up your claim or should I just chalk this post up to more of your trolling/insults/satire?

You mean against the implication that liberal lawmakers, by and large, not only support relaxing regulations on guns, but are taking the lead on the issue? Or that guns have souls, and there's a gun after-life where guns gun down liberal lawmakers? I do have a suggestion: lay off the weeeeeeeed, maaaaaan.

You talk a lot about silencers to protect your hearing, but I guess there's no way to deal with being tone deaf.

 

[G6000]

If I understand you correctly, you WANT people to be allowed to have sawn-off shotguns/rifles, and silencers?

Why would anyone want to have a sawn-off shotgun for any reason other than nefarious purposes such as easy concealment, or easily wielding it in a confined space? Perhaps there are legitimate reasons that I haven't considered to own such weapons (and I don't consider ''cos the 2nd amendment says I can" a reason). I can understand why people would want hunting rifles; I can even understand the need people might feel to have handguns when living in a paranoid society such as the USA. These are recreational and defensive weapons, but a sawn-off shotgun is a weapon of attack and aggression.

I guess you'll be hoping that another "law abiding gun owner" doesn't go berserk and a murder another couple of dozen primary school kids before the cut-off date.

So you believe one must prove a NEED before one is allowed to exercise one's rights.

That's interesting!

Of course, this means we can require someone to prove they NEED their midget porn.

 

[casebro]

I've always thought the Dems were on the wrong side of the gun debate. I never understood why a body of people so concerned with individual rights wouldn't read the right to self defense into the 2nd A. But I guess the Repubs took first choice at that plank, and the dems had no choice but to oppose, rather than work together for our civil rights. Stoopid political system, eh?

(eta: then, I think, the Dems grabbed Frredom of Choice, and the so the Repubs got stock with the conservative religious nuts. Who aren't any nuttier than the Southern Baptist Democrats though. But I'm wandering.)

 

[BStrong]

So you believe one must prove a NEED before one is allowed to exercise one's rights.

That's interesting!

Of course, this means we can require someone to prove they NEED their midget porn.

When you're otj, you can hear some interesting opinions from people who want you to know that they're "on your side."

I can't tell you how many times over the years I've heard someone assert that the Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections shouldn't apply to people stopped by the police.

I've also listened to people who'd be very happy if a law was passed banning (fill in the blank) music (Rap, Rock, Punk, whatever)

You don't need to go too far into public opinion on just about any subject before you find folks that are absolutely certain that some Constitutional protection exercised by someone other than themselves should be eliminated.

 

[BStrong]

I've always thought the Dems were on the wrong side of the gun debate. I never understood why a body of people so concerned with individual rights wouldn't read the right to self defense into the 2nd A. But I guess the Repubs took first choice at that plank, and the dems had no choice but to oppose, rather than work together for our civil rights. Stoopid political system, eh?

(eta: then, I think, the Dems grabbed Frredom of Choice, and the so the Repubs got stock with the conservative religious nuts. Who aren't any nuttier than the Southern Baptist Democrats though. But I'm wandering.)

I never get tired of quoting a friend of mine on the subject:

"The problem with the left is that they don't like guns. The problem with the right is that they don't like rights."

 

[BStrong]

Close. I want civilians and police in WA to have more access to registered short barreled rifles/shotguns and silencers.


Most states allow possession of short barreled shotguns. Do you really think all of those cops and law abiding civilians want these firearms for criminal purposes? I want one to enhance my gun collection.

You can ask WACOPS why they support the bill. http://www.wacops.org/?zone=/unionactive/contact.cfm

[qimg]http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/abaaow_zps820fb12b.jpg[/qimg]

On top is a short barreled shotgun (SBS), the bottom is a 12 gauge smooth bore pistol of the type typically registered as an "any other weapon" or AOW. It is not a shotgun as described by WA state or federal law. This AOW is obviously more readily concealable than any shotgun equipped with a shoulder stock. It is far more bulky than many handguns. AOW's are not regulated (or banned) by Washington State law.


No perhaps about it. A short barreled shotgun can be every bit as useful to sportsman as their full sized counterparts. I have never used the 2nd Amendment when speaking at a hearing in Olympia, probably never will either.


Can you tell me why a shotgun with a 17 inch barrel is less useful to the hunter or recreational shooter than one with an 18 inch barrel? Why is a registered SBS solely (?) "a weapon of attack and aggression"? Who do you know that uses them that way?


I hope it never happens again. What about you?

SB 5956 only affects registered firearms, the contraband firearms will still be illegal to possess.

Ranb

The AOW from Mark Serbu?

 

[Ranb]

Went to the Judiciary Committee hearing today. To make a long story short the bill is dead. I had hoped that the Judiciary Chair would include 5956 in the executive hearing but she did not. Thirteen people showed for the hearing, all pro, no con. We were told after the hearing by one of the committee members that there was a slight chance the Speaker of the House might pull the bill for a vote prior to the end of the session.

I've been hearing a rumor that 5956 is being held hostage to ensure the passage HB 1840 currently in the Senate Law and Justice Committee this evening. 1840 is a domestic violence bill that restricts gun possession by those under a restraining order. The bill was amended to require some due process. I hope 1840 passes based on its own merits rather than political maneuvering.

The AOW from Mark Serbu?

I think it is a Serbu Super Shorty.

Ranb