WA Attorney General wants AWB

[Ranb]

http://atg.wa.gov/news/news-release...s-ban-assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines

Ferguson’s proposed legislation has two key elements:
•A ban on semiautomatic weapons with military-style features that render them more easily concealable or more deadly; and

I wonder what these will be? The deadly pistol grip? The immoral bayonet lug? The threaded muzzle used by assassins to attach silencers?

•A limit on magazine capacity — currently unlimited under Washington law — to a maximum of 10 rounds of ammunition.

This will lead to a run on mags. How will they know which ones are pre-ban unless they ban them all?

“The recent tragedy in Mukilteo drives home the need to act with urgency to end the availability of weapons designed with only one purpose — to kill people,”

This old stupid trope. I guess the other 99.9% of us are using them for the wrong purposes?

My proposal will ban some of the deadliest weapons, while respecting the Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

I doubt it as assault weapons as usually defined are rarely associated with crime in WA.

Sen. David Frockt (D-46) and Sen. Kevin Ranker (D-40) are working with Ferguson to craft the legislation. The proposal will be modeled after successful assault weapon laws in other states, such as New York and Connecticut. The courts have determined these states’ bans to be constitutional.

Successful because it was "not struck down by the courts" or because of lives saved? I'm not aware that it saves lives at all.

Unlike the bans in some other states, Ferguson’s proposal targets only sales, grandfathering current gun ownership. The legislation would not require registration of existing weapons.

I wonder if mags will be grandfathered also. Senator Kline and two others tried for eight years to gut the fourth amendment rights of gun owners in WA; even the Seattle Times thought it was a bad idea.

This legislation will save lives.

I hope it does, I doubt it will.

A recent poll presented by Washington Ceasefire and Ceasefire Oregon showed that 65 percent of adults in the two states — including a great many gun owners — favor an assault weapons ban and want lawmakers to act.

311 people in WA and OR are not representative of WA residents in my opinion.

Attorney General Ferguson will file this legislation in December.

Supporters of the bill will probably be outnumbered ten to one by those who oppose it.

Ranb

 

[The Atheist]

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.

 

[Stacko]

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.

I thought the thread being posted in USA Politics would have cleared up your confusion over the acronyms. Did Australia become part of America recently and I missed the news?

 

[Ranb]

I didn't think that this would be a problem in the section of the forum titled "USA Politics"; which if you can read makes perfect sense.

We should learn that certain acronyms in the USA Politics section would make perfect sense to those wanting to read about issues concerning American politics.



ETA: AWB = assault weapons ban. ETA = edited to add.

 

[Ranb]

... Did Australia become part of America recently and I missed the news?

Maybe, I read complaints about how the Aussies are importing so much American culture.

 

[theprestige]

Australia's so vain, they probably think US politics is about them.

 

[Trebuchet]

AWB

In all seriousness, what does the acronym mean as you used it?

 

[plague311]

AWB

In all seriousness, what does the acronym mean as you used it?

It took me a minute to figure it out too. I think he means Assault Weapons Ban. I didn't read the whole post, as something similar to this gets posted about every year or so, from different parts of the US. It's kind of a "meh" thing to me.

 

[The Atheist]

I didn't think that this would be a problem in the section of the forum titled "USA Politics"; which if you can read makes perfect sense.

I was entering from the "New Posts" button, which doesn't show the section, but you're right, if I'd bothered looking it would have been.

Pretty funny how it works for Aussie, though.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I was entering from the "New Posts" button, which doesn't show the section, but you're right, if I'd bothered looking it would have been.

Pretty funny how it works for Aussie, though.

Like the word "root".

 

[BStrong]

Ran, might want to take a look at this:

http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=conlawnow

"A paper funded by The Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition examining whether Assault Weapons Bans can survive ‘rational basis’ scrutiny in the courts has been published in ConLawNOW.

The author, Clayton Cramer, is a noted historian whose work was cited in both District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago. Cramer concluded that “There is no way to hold that AW bans which deny a fundamental right, as Heller determined the Second Amendment to protect, survives the ‘rational basis’ standard of scrutiny.”

Legislation will pass the rational basis test, Cramer explains, if the court finds it is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Because AW bans apply to a segment of firearms that are among the least criminally used, are arbitrarily applied, call for irrational punishment lengths, and target a politically unpopular class of people, they are not rationally based."

 

[casebro]

And more people are killed by hammers.

California's 'ban' did pass the SCOTUS. Though they were "rare" at the time. And now they are the most common long gun out there. Banning 'rare and extreme' is different than banning the ubiquitous.

Not too sure if Cal's large capacity mag ban was ever to the high courts.

 

[BStrong]

And more people are killed by hammers.

California's 'ban' did pass the SCOTUS. Though they were "rare" at the time. And now they are the most common long gun out there. Banning 'rare and extreme' is different than banning the ubiquitous.

Not too sure if Cal's large capacity mag ban was ever to the high courts.

The original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act has been upheld by the California State Supreme court. but SCOTUS has never ruled on either R-R or the later SB23 AW ban, and we have some more AW ban laws going into effect 1 Jan 17.

Meanwhile, bad actors shoot each other and innocent victims w/ the same handguns that they've been using right along, and the odd cluster homicide brings great media attention and outrage about the least used weapons on the criminal/nutjob menu.

 

[casebro]

Yet my C&R A5 isn't even a blip on their radar. They made 5 million of those.

I guess it's OK to shoot people with a semi automatic shotgun, long as it doen't have a detachable magazine.

 

[casebro]

The original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act has been upheld by the California State Supreme court. but SCOTUS has never ruled on either R-R or the later SB23 AW ban, and we have some more AW ban laws going into effect 1 Jan 17.

Meanwhile, bad actors shoot each other and innocent victims w/ the same handguns that they've been using right along, and the odd cluster homicide brings great media attention and outrage about the least used weapons on the criminal/nutjob menu.

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"?

 

[fuelair]

I didn't think that this would be a problem in the section of the forum titled "USA Politics"; which if you can read makes perfect sense.

We should learn that certain acronyms in the USA Politics section would make perfect sense to those wanting to read about issues concerning American politics.



ETA: AWB = assault weapons ban. ETA = edited to add.

The problem is they are not trying to ban assault weapons, they are trying to ban weapons that only look like assault weapons!!!!! Looks don't kill.....

 

[ponderingturtle]

And more people are killed by hammers.

California's 'ban' did pass the SCOTUS. Though they were "rare" at the time. And now they are the most common long gun out there. Banning 'rare and extreme' is different than banning the ubiquitous.

Not too sure if Cal's large capacity mag ban was ever to the high courts.

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

 

[plague311]

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

It's weird to me as well.

 

[Ranb]

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

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.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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

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.

4) if someone is determined to shoot a whole bunch of people, a tactical vest full of 10 round mags is more reliable than, say, the batman shooter's 100rnd plastic POS drum mag which jammed.