Democrat gun control victory in WA Senate

[Ranb]

Prior to July 1, 1994 short barreled shotguns (SBS) and short barreled rifles (SBR) were legal for WA residents to possess; there were no state restrictions. BATFE authorization is required for anyone to possess them but the application is a routine matter and never denied to anyone filling out the application properly.

In 1994 when the feds were working on their own crime bill and AWB, Washington State was doing the same with a smaller 97 page bill called the Youth Violence Act. House Bill 2319-1994 contained an AWB but a large number of people showed up to voice their opposition; it was removed. Instead legislators decided to prohibit future possession of SBR and SBS by law abiding residents and restrict when the police could have them. The change was not intended to reduce or prevent crime; it was according to one of the bill authors, “to reduce calls for major restrictions”.

After the Democrats successfully introduced and passed (with the help of some Republicans) a bill to allow registered silencer use by civilians and police in 2011, they moved on to registered SBS and SBR. I wrote public disclosure requests in an attempt to determine how often these firearms were used by criminals. I was unable to find any evidence that registered SBS or SBR were ever used by criminals in WA, but the amount of data I received was statistically irrelevant when it came to determining how often contraband sawed off shotguns/rifles were used by criminals or confiscated by the police.

The SBS/SBR bills (2098/2099) died several times in committee and were re-introduced last year as an SBR bill only; HB 1561. The prime sponsor and most of the co-sponsors were Democrats until some Republicans jumped on the bandwagon. The police supported the bill and 7 of the 13 House Judiciary Committee members were co-sponsors. I thought it was a sure win, but then Sandy Hook happened. That tragedy resulted in re-introduction of an old loser of an AWB bill (SB 5737) which would violate the 4th amendment rights of gun owners (according to the liberal Seattle Times) and HB 1588, a flawed bill (so says the author) that would potentially eliminate some private sales by law abiding gun owners. The House Judiciary Chair told me he would not give the SBR bill a hearing in 2013 or 2014. He did recommend that I ask a Senator to sponsor a bill which he might give a hearing if it reached the House.

I asked Senator Hatfield (D) to sponsor an SBR bill; he did. I asked Senator Sheldon (D) to co-sponsor and he also agreed. Only one other Senator got onboard; Braun (R). Meanwhile the former House Judiciary Chair, Jamie Pedersen, was appointed to the Senate to replace Senator (4th amendment rights are not for gun owners) Murray who won the election for Seattle mayor. Pedersen’s chair on the Judiciary was replaced by an allegedly anti-gun Representative Laurie Jinkins (D). I met with Jinkins; she was not inclined to give the SBR bill a hearing in committee as she was reluctant to ease any firearm restrictions in the state, but was reconsidering based upon our meeting. She eventually gave the SBR bill a public hearing but then killed it by not giving it an executive hearing.

This left the Senate version of the bill, SB 5956. Senator Padden (R) scheduled the bill for an executive hearing where I thought former committee chair Senator Kline (AWB sponsor) and Senator Pedersen would vote against; it got a unanimous pass recommendation. The SBR bill went on to the Rules Committee where it was pulled to the yellow sheet for a vote by Sheldon (D). On 2/18 the bill passed in the Democrat controlled Senate 47-0-2.

For a while it appeared that Judiciary Chair Jinkins was holding the SBR bill hostage to ensure HB 1840, a domestic violence bill, was passed. As far as I know a deal was made and both bills are now scheduled for hearings this week right before the cut-off.

If the gun control laws in WA keep improving, I might decide to stay here after I retire in 2023.

Ranb

 

[smartcooky]

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.

 

[Ranb]

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

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

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



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.

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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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

 

[Trakar]

Not a big fan of silencers, but I don't feel that any pump or lever-action shotgun or rifle should require registration or regulation.

 

[Ranb]

Not a big fan of silencers, but I don't feel that any pump or lever-action shotgun or rifle should require registration or regulation.

Why not a fan of silencers?

Ranb

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

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?

.
It's because, as you are undoubtedly aware, the muzzle velocity and discharge pattern changed dramatically as the barrel gets shorter making such weapons inappropriate for hunting. Unless you're stalking large game or target shooting at less than 25 feet - which no hunter or sport shooter would ever do - you're not going to have use of such a weapon.

I think it's disingenuous to bring up the hunting angle over this. Let's just be honest about it: these are personal defense weapons. If you want to make a case based on that I have no real issue with it. If somebody's going to have a self-defense weapon in the house then I'd rather see an SBS than a 9mm or 45 auto. IMHO the SBS is safer and more effective any handgun for such uses. I can't really object to arguments based on personal defense.

But please don't try and pass it off as a sporting weapon. There's nothing "sporting" about a spray pattern that's three feet wide at 5 yards. I'd love to see how you score targets with that kind of a pattern. There's no such thing as a miss!

 

[Trakar]

Why not a fan of silencers?
Ranb

In general they reduce muzzle velocity, reduce accuracy, create imbalance in the weapon and are ugly while offering little or no real discernible benefit of merit to the purposes for which I employ firearms.

 

[tyr_13]

In general they reduce muzzle velocity, reduce accuracy, create imbalance in the weapon and are ugly while offering little or no real discernible benefit of merit to the purposes for which I employ firearms.

Barely, no, no, personal opinion, and personal opinion which you probably can't actually support.

EDIT: I should clarify, the above is depending on the suppressor and firearm. Some suppressors will make some weapons imbalanced, but others it will bring into balance. Depending on how it is mounted it might do either to the same weapon. Modern suppressors don't reduce muzzle velocity and in fact can increase them, albeit a completely insignificant increase. Some guns I think are ugly with some mountings while others look better in my opinion. Suppressors reduce the sound of the blast and I can think of very, very few purposes for a firearm that wouldn't find that as an advantage. Besides that, suppressors reduce recoils, sometimes significantly. Besides the effect of the added weight, the pneumatic effects of the redirected propellent gas 'pulls' the gun in the same direction as the bullet. Plus lead particles in the air are reduced. These are advantages in most any use of a firearm.

I'm sorry for being so curt.

 

[Ranb]

.
It's because, as you are undoubtedly aware, the muzzle velocity and discharge pattern changed dramatically as the barrel gets shorter making such weapons inappropriate for hunting.

They do? Got a source for this claim? The change in velocity is dependent upon barrel length and powder burn rate. The pattern is dependent more upon choke size than anything else

.Unless you're stalking large game or target shooting at less than 25 feet - which no hunter or sport shooter would ever do - you're not going to have use of such a weapon.

Why is 25 feet the range limit for any shotgun with enough barrel to ensure adequate velocity and with the appropriate choke to ensure a tight pattern?

.But please don't try and pass it off as a sporting weapon. There's nothing "sporting" about a spray pattern that's three feet wide at 5 yards. I'd love to see how you score targets with that kind of a pattern. There's no such thing as a miss!

Really? I've tried shooting clays with an open choke, the pattern was rather loose, the clays went right through it at times. It was okay for clays I flipped into the air with my hand and shot about ten feet in front of the muzzle, but with a clay thrower the modified or closed choke was much better.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

In general they reduce muzzle velocity, reduce accuracy, create imbalance in the weapon and are ugly while offering little or no real discernible benefit of merit to the purposes for which I employ firearms.

Where do you get your silencers from anyway? Except for the very few silencers equipped with mesh or wipes which touch the bullet, modern silencers with aluminum or steel baffles do not reduce velocity or degrade accuracy. Adding a 3 ounce silencer to a 6-8 pound rifle doesn't make it unbalanced for me.

I like using a muffler on my guns, makes them more comfortable to shoot except for my M-1 carbine; too much blow back through the chamber.

I have measured the suppressor boost on my 22lr can. It was only 4 feet per second, insignificant, but it means the ammo doesn't slow down due to the silencer.

Ranb

 

[Trakar]

.
It's because, as you are undoubtedly aware, the muzzle velocity and discharge pattern changed dramatically as the barrel gets shorter making such weapons inappropriate for hunting. Unless you're stalking large game or target shooting at less than 25 feet - which no hunter or sport shooter would ever do - you're not going to have use of such a weapon.

I think it's disingenuous to bring up the hunting angle over this. Let's just be honest about it: these are personal defense weapons. If you want to make a case based on that I have no real issue with it. If somebody's going to have a self-defense weapon in the house then I'd rather see an SBS than a 9mm or 45 auto. IMHO the SBS is safer and more effective any handgun for such uses. I can't really object to arguments based on personal defense.

But please don't try and pass it off as a sporting weapon. There's nothing "sporting" about a spray pattern that's three feet wide at 5 yards. I'd love to see how you score targets with that kind of a pattern. There's no such thing as a miss!

Self-defense doesn't necessarily mean "home defense" from other humans. I spend a lot of time in wilderness areas that I share with large and occasionally dangerous animals, and they don't always announce their presence at long range. An easily deployable pump 12-gauge is a much better option when a 400lb momma grizzly comes charging out of the brush. It isn't always necessary to shoot such an animal, often the noise alone is enough to interrupt things and allow both parties to safely retreat from confrontation. When it is necessary, the shotgun is up to the task. Why short guns? Weight (I'm talking about something I need to carry all day while hiking over wild terrain) and the ability to pull the weapon and hold aim on a moving target in brush.

 

[Trakar]

Where do you get your silencers from anyway? Except for the very few silencers equipped with mesh or wipes which touch the bullet, modern silencers with aluminum or steel baffles do not reduce velocity or degrade accuracy. Adding a 3 ounce silencer to a 6-8 pound rifle doesn't make it unbalanced for me.

I like using a muffler on my guns, makes them more comfortable to shoot except for my M-1 carbine; too much blow back through the chamber.

Ranb

Sounds more like diffusers or suppressors than the "silencers" (which generally do contain "wipes" and require the use of partial loads to achieve significant "silencing") I am familiar with. Diffusers and suppressors used with full load ammunition actually achieve very little quietening/silencing (~10db IIRC) but they are very light and do help reduce kick both from the added weight on the barrel and from the retardation of the propellant gases. Several ounces on the end of a rifle barrel can seriously impact the balance of the weapon. The noise doesn't bother me that much, I have a set of Caldwell e-max muffs that I wear when range/target shooting, which work much better than anything I could add to the end of my rifles. When I hunt, it depends on whether I'm stalking or sniping, and how far out in the woods I am, but I rarely shoot more than 2-3 rounds a day when I'm hunting. And, like I said before, I don't like the looks of them on finely crafted firearms, I think they look cheesy and cheap.
All of this said, my practical experience with them and some of the different varieties of them, is very small and limited, it is quite possible that there are innovations and improvements over the last 20 years or so that would reduce many of my technical objections and issues.

 

[Ranb]

Sounds more like diffusers or suppressors than the "silencers" (which generally do contain "wipes" and require the use of partial loads to achieve significant "silencing") I am familiar with.

A silencer is any device intended to suppress the report of a firearm. A silencer is only intended to reduce muzzle blast noise and does nothing for action, bullet flight or impact noise. In other words a silencer is going to reduce muzzle noise by about the same amount no matter what the powder charge.

Diffusers and suppressors used with full load ammunition actually achieve very little quietening/silencing (~10db IIRC) but they are very light and do help reduce kick both from the added weight on the barrel and from the retardation of the propellant gases.

Take a look at this chart of silencer effectiveness. http://www.silencertests.com/results.htm You can see that typical noise reduction is about 25 to 40 decibels. 30 decibels is a 1000 times decrease in intensity and an 8 times reduction in loudness

All of this said, my practical experience with them and some of the different varieties of them, is very small and limited, it is quite possible that there are innovations and improvements over the last 20 years or so that would reduce many of my technical objections and issues.

As far as I know the improvements in noise suppression have been very dramatic over the last 20 years.

Ranb

 

[Trakar]

A silencer is any device intended to suppress the report of a firearm. A silencer is only intended to reduce muzzle blast noise and does nothing for action, bullet flight or impact noise. In other words a silencer is going to reduce muzzle noise by about the same amount no matter what the powder charge.

And that is part of the purpose of reduced powder charge, reduce the load and you bring the projectile subsonic, and generate a much lower initial blast signature. Taken to extremes, it isn't difficult to hear with your own ears the difference between say a Remington CB 22 round (which is a partial load subsonic round) and the largely similar Winchester SuperX 22 round which is a supersonic full load round). Actually, there is a youtube vid. demonstrating the normal differences load and bullet speed make (which do you think would be louder with a silencer on it?)

Take a look at this chart of silencer effectiveness. You can see that typical noise reduction is about 25 to 40 decibels. 30 decibels is a 1000 times decrease in intensity and an 8 times reduction in loudness

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

As far as I know the improvements in noise suppression have been very dramatic over the last 20 years.

Ranb

Quite possibly, but they still offer no substantive benefit to the manner I use guns (as well as the other detractions) and there is still the ugly factor.

 

[Cain]

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

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

An easily deployable pump 12-gauge is a much better option when a 400lb momma grizzly comes charging out of the brush.

.
Rules for Effective Political Advocacy #17 -

When advocating the legalization of banned, high-powered firearms never include the concepts of "Alien Invasion", "Zombie Apocalypse", or "Possible Bear Attack" as part of your main argument.


Honestly sir, "I need a sawed-off shotgun because #GrizzlyBearsWhileCamping" sounds like something off the Cobert Report. Defending against a situation you have almost zero chance of ever encountering doesn't lend credibility to your position.

Canadians kill more Americans than bears do. Does that mean you need a full-auto AK whenever you go to a hockey game?

 

[BTMO]

In general they reduce muzzle velocity

Wrong.

reduce accuracy

Wrong.

create imbalance in the weapon

This can be compensated for...

and are ugly

Partially conceded.

while offering little or no real discernible benefit of merit to the purposes for which I employ firearms.

I don't know what you use them for, but I have a suppressor on a 7mmRM rifle. It turns to the earth shattering kaboom into a loud crack (just the supersonic crack of the bullet) meaning I can use it infrequently without hearing protection - or loss of hearing, reduces felt recoil *considerably*, improves accuracy, doesn't touch muzzle velocity appreciably (there may be a slight increase - I need to chronograph it again) and doesn't disturb animals as much as a standard unsurpressed 162g projectile travelling at <3200fps.

It quite simply makes the 7mm a delight to use.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

They do? Got a source for this claim? The change in velocity is dependent upon barrel length and powder burn rate. The pattern is dependent more upon choke size than anything else


Why is 25 feet the range limit for any shotgun with enough barrel to ensure adequate velocity and with the appropriate choke to ensure a tight pattern?


Really? I've tried shooting clays with an open choke, the pattern was rather loose, the clays went right through it at times. It was okay for clays I flipped into the air with my hand and shot about ten feet in front of the muzzle, but with a clay thrower the modified or closed choke was much better.

Ranb

.
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.

 

[BTMO]

Short barrel shotguns are great for walk up rabbit shooting. You‘d have to live in a country with rabbits in plague numbers to appreciate that properly...

 

[RockNroll]

.
Canadians kill more Americans than bears do.

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