Bob Ferguson's Ban on Commonly Owned Semi-Autos

Whitney · Nov 22, 2016

I want to share an email and hopefully get some work started front loading opposition.
Today I received reply from the AG office of Constituent Services regarding my FOIA request regarding the following Attorney General news release.
http://atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-proposes-ban-assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines.

I have to mail a check to the office of Constituent Services, then hurry up and wait for the CD. I will make the information available here or link it up for sharing.

~Whitney

<<<<<<<<<< email share follows >>>>>>>
Dear Whitney,

Thank you for writing, I apologize it has taken me so long to respond! There's still no actual bill on the so-called assault weapon ban so there's nothing for me to react to; if/when there actually is a bill and if/when we hear it in the House Judiciary Committee (on which I sit, which has jurisdiction over gun issues) I'll be looking for testimony and evidence that the categories of firearms/magazines targeted by the ban are more lethal than what's left out of the ban. But that will come much later; we are some months away from having any actual concrete piece of legislation to examine, much less a hearing on it.

Thanks for writing & please come by and visit if you're ever in Olympia!

Best, Drew

Representative Drew Hansen
Chair, Higher Education Committee
23rd Legislative District
369 John L. O'Brien
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504
(Office) 360-786-7842
Click here to sign up for our e-newsletter!

-----Original Message-----
From: whitney.slater@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 6:52 AM
To: Hansen, Rep. Drew <Drew.Hansen@leg.wa.gov>
Subject: Oppose Bob Fergusons Ban on Commonly Owned Semi-Autos

whitney slater
poulsbo, WA 98370

October 16, 2016

The Honorable Drew Hansen
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Dear Representative Hansen,

Dear State Rep/Sen:

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has announced the he will ask the legislature to ban commonly owned semi-automatics - a dramatic reenactment of federal legislation which was so ineffectual it was allowed to expire.

I agree with Gun Owners of America that the federal ban on so-called assault weapons had NO IMPACT upon crime whatsoever.

In fact, in the first 10 years after the ban expired, FBI statistics show that the national murder rate dropped 18 percent.

So even though the once-banned guns are now legal again -- Americans are much safer. How do the anti-gunners explain that?

The fact is, they cant.

When you took your oath of office, you swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States -- including the Second Amendment which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I hope that you will OPPOSE Fergusons gun ban and uphold your oath of office. Please let me know what you intend to do.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,
whitney slater

davidmcbeth · Nov 22, 2016

Look forward to the records and request you made....

Telling people to "do their oath" LOL - classic.

But in actuality, they take no "oath" but only make a promise.

Whitney · Dec 5, 2016

UPDATE

Today I received batch 1 of requested documents, I expect a batch 2 on or before December 12.

Two pdf files are linked up on my Dropbox folder, URL follows.

Dropbox - AG FOIA

Following is what I requested:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Pursuant to Washington's Sunshine Law, please supply me with:
1) Electronic copies of all communications received or transmitted since 9/1/2016 which reference or question assault weapons /or weapons prohibitions - in general as referenced in the following Attorney General news release.
AG Ferguson proposes ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines | Washington State

2) Documentation indicating the names & e-mail addresses of coalition members referred to in the aforementioned news release.

Item #1 above should be understood to include internal communications also.

If you have questions about this request, don't hesitate to call.

Cordially,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

~Whitney

davidmcbeth · Dec 5, 2016

Looks like that they are happy (sarcasm) to provide the public with records ... with public officials like this, who needs enemies?

OC4me · Dec 6, 2016

Whitney, please carefully note my 2 cents worth of advice below ;-).

* * * * *

Those folks in Washington state who are opposed to private ownership of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines, which they themselves often helpfully define as proper military weapons, have a state constitutional problem. Don’t let them continue to dodge the fact that the Washington state RTKBA provision is explicitly protective of the right of individual citizens to possess so-called assault weapons. In Article I, Section 24, of the Washington Constitution, the right of the citizen to possess military-type arms is literally hiding in plain-view:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

The part most relevant, to the ill-conceived assault weapons ban, is this: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of . . . the state, shall not be impaired . . ."

Sure, the anti’s will defend their ban, but how successful do you think the AG will be arguing that revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles are the only type of arms which Washington citizens have the right to bear in the (thankfully) unlikely event they must defend the state during a dire and catastrophic emergency? Does the AG really want to argue that citizens would be expected to lose their lives, while defending the state, fielding outdated arms?

Washington's RTKBA provision, unlike the 2nd Amendment, has no controversial 'well-regulated militia' clause by which the AG could argue the right only belongs to those citizen ‘actively serving’ in the state militia. Therefore, it is unclear how those who propose to adopt a complete ban on civilian ownership of the very type of arms most suited to defend the state, if and when needed, would pass constitutional muster. The very purpose of Article I, Section 24 is to prohibit the state legislature from doing exactly what it is that the AG is now currently proposing. If Washington’s RTKBA clause meant anything, it meant to prohibit exactly such a scenario. Someone ought to point the obvious out to Bob Ferguson. His proposed ban directly conflicts with the state constitution and he ought to explain to the citizenry why he thinks the state constitution doesn’t say what it says.

If the AG doesn’t like that, too bad, the solution is to amend the state constitution.

Washington is not alone. Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming also have similar constitutional provisions protecting the right of their respective citizens to keep arms for defense of the state.

I would bet my last dollar that whatever court cases, if any, that the AG cites to justify his assault-weapons ban deal only with the type of arms suitable for ‘self-defense’ rather than the separate yet equally valid ‘state-defense’ purpose clearly enumerated in the text. I have no doubt that future litigation over the scope of arms suitable for ‘defense of state’ would be a long-overdue case of first impression.

Article I, Section 24’s bearing arms for ‘defense of state’ is one of your individual citizen’s enumerated rights for goodness sakes! You may lose the PR battle and at the district court, but make no mistake, the appellate and state supreme courts really have no other alternative but to strictly adhere to the plain text of the state constitution. Good luck!

Whitney · Dec 7, 2016

OC4me said:
Whitney, please carefully note my 2 cents worth of advice below ;-).

* * * * *

Those folks in Washington state who are opposed to private ownership of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines, which they themselves often helpfully define as proper military weapons, have a state constitutional problem. Don’t let them continue to dodge the fact that the Washington state RTKBA provision is explicitly protective of the right of individual citizens to possess so-called assault weapons. In Article I, Section 24, of the Washington Constitution, the right of the citizen to possess military-type arms is literally hiding in plain-view:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

The part most relevant, to the ill-conceived assault weapons ban, is this: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of . . . the state, shall not be impaired . . ."

Sure, the anti’s will defend their ban, but how successful do you think the AG will be arguing that revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles are the only type of arms which Washington citizens have the right to bear in the (thankfully) unlikely event they must defend the state during a dire and catastrophic emergency? Does the AG really want to argue that citizens would be expected to lose their lives, while defending the state, fielding outdated arms?

Washington's RTKBA provision, unlike the 2nd Amendment, has no controversial 'well-regulated militia' clause by which the AG could argue the right only belongs to those citizen ‘actively serving’ in the state militia. Therefore, it is unclear how those who propose to adopt a complete ban on civilian ownership of the very type of arms most suited to defend the state, if and when needed, would pass constitutional muster. The very purpose of Article I, Section 24 is to prohibit the state legislature from doing exactly what it is that the AG is now currently proposing. If Washington’s RTKBA clause meant anything, it meant to prohibit exactly such a scenario. Someone ought to point the obvious out to Bob Ferguson. His proposed ban directly conflicts with the state constitution and he ought to explain to the citizenry why he thinks the state constitution doesn’t say what it says.

If the AG doesn’t like that, too bad, the solution is to amend the state constitution.

Washington is not alone. Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming also have similar constitutional provisions protecting the right of their respective citizens to keep arms for defense of the state.

I would bet my last dollar that whatever court cases, if any, that the AG cites to justify his assault-weapons ban deal only with the type of arms suitable for ‘self-defense’ rather than the separate yet equally valid ‘state-defense’ purpose clearly enumerated in the text. I have no doubt that future litigation over the scope of arms suitable for ‘defense of state’ would be a long-overdue case of first impression.

Article I, Section 24’s bearing arms for ‘defense of state’ is one of your individual citizen’s enumerated rights for goodness sakes! You may lose the PR battle and at the district court, but make no mistake, the appellate and state supreme courts really have no other alternative but to strictly adhere to the plain text of the state constitution. Good luck!

Agree with all, and Thank You for the insight. What is troubling me is the tone of the email I received from Drew Hanson.
It seems to me he has made up his mind on how to qualify the the proposed ban before any legislation is put forward.
His [Hanson] argument is merely a distraction as you previously pointed out.

I shall pay him a visit in Olympia after the first of the year. My intent is to root out the backdoor shenanigans that appear to be happening behind the scene.

~Whitney

Whitney · Dec 20, 2016

Update #2

Update number two; this is batch number two from my FOIA request of the AG.
I expect to receive a batch 3 on or about December 30.

Your going to want to read this one. Just scroll down to page 94 of the pdf.

Batch 2 FOIA

~Whitney

davidmcbeth · Dec 20, 2016

Whitney said:
Update number two; this is batch number two from my FOIA request of the AG.
I expect to receive a batch 3 on or about December 30.

Your going to want to read this one. Just scroll down to page 94 of the pdf.

Batch 2 FOIA

~Whitney

Not to hard getting around those restrictions ... written by idiots.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Dec 20, 2016

OC4me said:
Whitney, please carefully note my 2 cents worth of advice below ;-).

* * * * *

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

The part most relevant, to the ill-conceived assault weapons ban, is this: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of . . . the state, shall not be impaired . . ."
provisions protecting the right of their respective citizens to keep arms for defense of the state.
!

So is the 2nd amendment when has that stopped anti's from doing what the have done. The constitution does not mean anything to these people other then some thing that is old and does not mean anything.

The courts have been more then willing to use the constitution to restrict rights, as to expand them by very limited rulings and the so called for the public safety exemption.

The courts work very hard at coming up with reasons why the constitution does not mean what it means.

The courts could be a relief for such laws as mentioned above but don't count on it.

They have proven time after time not to rule in favor of bearing arms.

I have hope that maybe some day SHALL NOT INNFRINGE well be ruled to mean just that, but so far I have not even seen it brought up in arguments in the right to bear arm cases.

Good luck in defeating this law.

davidmcbeth · Dec 22, 2016

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
So is the 2nd amendment when has that stopped anti's from doing what the have done. The constitution does not mean anything to these people other then some thing that is old and does not mean anything.

The courts have been more then willing to use the constitution to restrict rights, as to expand them by very limited rulings and the so called for the public safety exemption.

The courts work very hard at coming up with reasons why the constitution does not mean what it means.

The courts could be a relief for such laws as mentioned above but don't count on it.

They have proven time after time not to rule in favor of bearing arms.

I have hope that maybe some day SHALL NOT INNFRINGE well be ruled to mean just that, but so far I have not even seen it brought up in arguments in the right to bear arm cases.

Good luck in defeating this law.

It is indeed rare for a .gov to leave a right alone ... legislatures feel as if they have to pass laws and judges think that they must put their own spin on the law, like they are on America's Got Talent .... I pay little heed to their thoughts on my rights, just on how they think that they can try to turn them into privileges.

Whitney · Jan 6, 2017

Update #3

This is Batch 3 of my FOIA request from the AG.
Nothing too exciting in here, down on page 123, the WA State University is attempting to change their firearm policy.

One thing to note !!! page 176 contains an email that suggests the Insurance Commissioner is joining Bob on this.
I dont know what that means but it sounds like I should be doing a FOIA request from the Insurance commissioner now.

I have also cross posted this over on Northwest Firearms. There you can view, without downloading, the proposal from my batch 2 files.

~Whitney

mnrobitaille · Jan 7, 2017

Whitney said:
This is Batch 3 of my FOIA request from the AG.
Nothing too exciting in here, down on page 123, the WA State University is attempting to change their firearm policy.

One thing to note !!! page 176 contains an email that suggests the Insurance Commissioner is joining Bob on this.
I dont know what that means but it sounds like I should be doing a FOIA request from the Insurance commissioner now.

I have also cross posted this over on Northwest Firearms. There you can view, without downloading, the proposal from my batch 2 files.

~Whitney

Current policy at WSU is that they prohibit the carrying of firearms on campus. I made a campus visit back in October to go to the Bookie after having to run to Moscow, ID, & I called to verify with WSU Campus Police about the policy of firearms, before visiting. The response I got was that technically firearms are not allowed on campus, however if concealed carrying & does not become visible, there would be no problems. I walked on campus from Smith Fieldhouse, past the football practice fields, to the Compton Union Building (where the Bookie is now located), & back to my car using the same route with no issues while CCing.

davidmcbeth · Jan 7, 2017

Whitney said:
<snip>

One thing to note !!! page 176 contains an email that suggests the Insurance Commissioner is joining Bob on this.
I dont know what that means but it sounds like I should be doing a FOIA request from the Insurance commissioner now.

~Whitney

I can tell you that bills proposed in my state relating to required insurance originated with the Brady foundation (none passed) with the expressed intent of denying people the right to possess.

To look at this BOB you would likely have to ask for ALL his emails over a certain time period (text messages too!) and phone records... asking them to ID particular emails ? Then they'll hide the ones your actually interested in obtaining.

carracer · Jan 9, 2017

Am I reading correctly that a Marlin Model 60 .22 would become illegal?

davidmcbeth · Jan 9, 2017

carracer said:
Am I reading correctly that a Marlin Model 60 .22 would become illegal?

Most legislation focuses on center-fire rifles.

But they'll go after the rim fire next I would assume.

And no, they don't care about the differences.

Whitney · Jan 9, 2017

Yes, perhaps...... most definately...it depends.

carracer said:
Am I reading correctly that a Marlin Model 60 .22 would become illegal?

Words mean what the person writing them wants them to mean. [typos were in the draft legislation]

First there is this:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1) No person in this state may manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine except as authorized in this section.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) The possession of an assault weapon or large-capacity magazine by a person who legally possessed the assault weapon or large capacity magazine prior to/on the effective date of this section, or possession of an assault weapon or large-capacity magazine by a person who, on or after the effective date of this section, acquires possession of the assault weapon or large capacity magazine by operation of law upon the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the assault weapon or large capacity magazine. Provided the person in possession of the assault weapon or large capacity magazine can establish such provenance. A person who legally possesses an assault weapon or large capacity magazine under this subsection (2)(a) may not sell or transfer the assault weapon to any other person in this state other than to a licensed dealer, to a federally licensed gun smith for the purpose of service or repair, or to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of permanently relinquishing the assault weapon or large capacity magazine;

Then the definition of a "person":
(17) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity.

Then the definition of "assault weapon"
(27) "Assault weapon" means:
(a) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) A folding or telescoping stock;
(iv) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(b)A semiautomatic pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;
(c) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(ii) A folding stock, telescoping stock, or thumbhole stock;
(iii) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(d) A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
(i) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) A folding or telescoping stock;
(iv) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; or
(v) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;
(e) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or
(f) A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
"Assault weapon" does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.

and the clincher

(28) "Detachable magazine" means an ammunition feeding device that can be loaded or unloaded while detached from a firearm and readily inserted into a firearm.
(29) "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, or any conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which such a device can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(a) An ammunition feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds of ammunition;
(b) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or
(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

So....the most popular .22 rim-fire in America would be classified as an "assault weapon" based on the premise that it is a semi automatic rim-fire (27b). But then they give you an exemption for the "Large capacity magazine" in 29 b.

But wait, what about 27 a iv ? A shroud that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned.

YES, your innocuous rim-fire rifle will be classified as an "assault weapon".

There are some pretty smart folks here, so... if you disagree with my interpretation then please weigh in.

~Whitney

devldogs55 · Jan 9, 2017

Just reading about this makes me sick. And angry.

bebop4one · Jan 10, 2017

devldogs55 said:
Just reading about this makes me sick. And angry.

It makes me want to move. If I hadn't just started an apprenticeship 6 months ago I would seriously look at moving to Texas.

davidmcbeth · Jan 10, 2017

Whitney said:
Words mean what the person writing them wants them to mean. [typos were in the draft legislation]
<snip>

There are some pretty smart folks here, so... if you disagree with my interpretation then please weigh in.

~Whitney

Thanks Whitney .. looks like they included rim fire too. Classic lizzurds, upping the anti.

So ya need to change the grip to a non-pistol grip or dump the thumb hole stock ... no problem there.

Then you need to remove the barrel shroud (for those types) that allow you to hold the barrel w/o being burned (just use gloves ~ not a feature of the rifle).

Or do nothing.

(Not a law yet!)

As for "non-detactable mag" the language is the same as those in my state ... I examined a few products that claim to make the gun OK under salty bans...one of which I don't think does. May wish to review that thread:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...t-non-detachable-quot-mag-warning-examination

davidmcbeth · Jan 10, 2017

bebop4one said:
It makes me want to move. If I hadn't just started an apprenticeship 6 months ago I would seriously look at moving to Texas.

Its should make you want to build more guns outside this salty definition. Easily done.

I can make any gun outside of their salty bans ... and it would essentially do the same job.

Bob Ferguson's Ban on Commonly Owned Semi-Autos

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned