Washington State lawmakers to seek ban on military-style weapons

swatspyder · Dec 16, 2009

imported post

State lawmakers to seek ban on sales of semi-automatic weapons

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

By Molly Rosbach

Seattle Times staff reporter

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

The lawmakers intend to propose the ban in the state legislative session that begins next month.

The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

It is named for Aaron Sullivan, 18, who was fatally shot last July in Seattle's Leschi neighborhood, allegedly with an assault-style weapon.

Supporters say they also are motivated by the Oct. 31 slaying of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton and the wounding of his partner. Police believe a .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle was used then.

The bill is backed by Seattle's police department, spokeswoman Renee Witt said. Also pushing it is Washington Ceasefire, a nonprofit that seeks to reduce gun violence. The group plans a news conference today to announce the proposal.

The lawmakers who plan to sponsor the bill are Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina; Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle; and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle.

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.

"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.

Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, a publication of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, said such a ban would punish law-abiding citizens who own such guns.

"I don't care if my neighbor has a dozen of the things; ... as long as he's not hurting anyone or breaking any laws, leave him alone," Workman said.

He also said he doesn't consider the gun police say was used to kill Brenton an assault rifle.

advertising

Hunter knows getting the bill through the Legislature would be difficult, because of concerns about limits on gun ownership. However, he thinks the ban is necessary.

"We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction," he said.

Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners.

"What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state," she said.

She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

Local News | State lawmakers to seek ban on sales of semi-automatic weapons | Seattle Times Newspaper

Contact Rep. Hunter:
District office:
1611 116th Ave NE
Suite 206
Bellevue, WA 98004
(425) 453-3064

Olympia office:
PO Box 40600
330 John L. O'Brien Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
(360) 786-7936

Toll-free Hotline: 1-800-562-6000
TTY (hearing impaired): 1-800-635-9993
hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov

-----------------------------------------------

Contacting Sen. Adam Kline
By Phone:
Olympia Office: (360) 786-7688

By E-Mail
kline.adam@leg.wa.gov

By Postal Mail
Sen. Adam Kline
PO Box 40437
Olympia, WA 98504-0437

-----------------------------------------------

Contacting Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles
By Phone:
Olympia Office: (360) 786-7670
Seattle Office: (206) 281-6854
Fax: (206) 216-3182

By E-mail:
kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov

By Postal Mail
Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles
PO Box 40436
Olympia, WA 98504-0436

SouthernBoy · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

There are two major flaws in this article as it relates to the Second Amendment.

"We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction," he said."

"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked."

First, the issue about "tanks or bazookas". When the Second Amendment was written, the term "arms" referred to weapons which could be carried on or about the person. Most people would classify these as small arms in general terms.

The second is also frequently is raised by anti-gun people; that the Founders could not possibly have envisioned the weapons of today. What they did envision and what the intent of the Second Amendment is regarding this concept is that the people be armed with small arms which are compatible with those used by the military. M16's and their clones would be correct. The Swiss do this. If you doubt this was the meaning, check out United States v Miller.

VA Lawyer · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about."

Other than maybe some .50 BMG precision rifles, does the army use anything that is not a selective fire weapon?

Master Doug Huffman · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

M-40/M-24

Statesman · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

If you folks in Washington state want to have the greatest impact on your legislature to oppose this genocide promoting gun ban bill, the best thing you can do IMHO, is to buy a copy of "Innocents Betrayed" from Jews for the Protection of the Second Amendment, and mail it to your legislator, asking him/her to oppose the bill for the reasons outlined in the DVD. This "use of guns only for hunting purposes" garbage is in complete conflict with the 2nd amendment, and is ludicrous.

This video effectively makes anti-gun arguments entirely irrelevant. The survival of humanity depends on the ability to defend itself from foreign or domestic state sanctioned genocide. The history of this genocide and the need to prevent it, is irrefutable, even with liberals. Politicians are mistaken in their beliefs that they are in control, and that "it can't happen here". The truth is, it already has happened with the gun ownership rights of freed slaves.

Also send a copy to the perhaps well intentioned, but misinformed individuals proposing the bill.

I have no financial ties to JFPO.

Note the discounts on multiple copies purchased. This is ideal if you want to send a copy to every state legislator in your state.

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

New Discount Offer! - JPFO offers a special rate for purchases of 6 or 12 copies of the ''Innocents Betrayed'' DVD or VHS.

You may now opt to purchase 6 copies for $72 (equating to $12 per copy), or 12 copies for $120 (equating to just $10 per copy), shipping is included within the U.S.A. Note - an order for a set counts as ONE item.

Master Doug Huffman · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

When More Guns, Less Crime was first released in paperback, GRGRSC sent a copy to each of its legislators.

Statesman · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

When More Guns, Less Crime was first released in paperback, GRGRSC sent a copy to each of its legislators.

It's much easier to get someone to watch a DVD, than to read a book these days. I guess they both reach different audiences. I just keep reminding OCDO folks here about the power behind "Innocents Betrayed". After watching it, it solidified my position on being a gun rights advocate. Anyone that watches it, IMHO, will be hard pressed not to become a gun rights advocate themselves.

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com

Nutczak · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.

So since the military has, and continues to use pump-action and semi-auto 12GA shotguns, I suppose these would be on "The List" too if these clowns had their way

I wonder what this group would say about an AR variant that has been dipped in Mossy Oak camouflage film. It makes a great varmint rifle, and the .223 projectile does a great job on deer-sized animals. I consider a semi-auto AR variant an excellent sporting rifle suitable for several disciplines of shooting sports. How about the Ruger 10/22, isn't that what the US biathalon team uses for competition?

And then we come to the part that these morons never ever consider, Criminals will own weapons that have been banned no matter what the law states. This does absolutely nothing to disarm the criminals that would use these weapons as an offensive tool, but does everything to disarm the law abiding citizen. It would guarantee that criminals have the advantage in every situation.

Morons, Complete morons! Time to unseat these idiots from their position during the next election

Statesman · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

I would not engage these people on what constitutes a hunting rifle versus military rifle. If you do, you risk affirming their "hunting rights only" argument as legitimate. Once they have that, they will move to ban hunting. I believe the argument should be based on the original premise and intent behind the 2nd amendment.

This puts the opposing and supporting sides in the correct political categories. The minute we adopt "their" arguments on classifying what constitutes appropriate gun ownership, is the minute we lose our gun rights, Canadian style.

tekshogun · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

State lawmakers to seek ban on sales of semi-automatic weapons

Oh my, that is just dumb legislation!

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

In place of non-military style semi-automatic weapons? DUMB! People of Washington, don't let it happen! Even beyond the argument that it can set a precedence to limit other rights, it's just plain dumb!

The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

And how do they plan on doing background checks on people that already have the rifles? Does WA already have a list of "assault weapon" owners on file somewhere? Foolishness either way.

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.

And how are they going to make that determination exactly?

"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.

That goes with my question above! That is plain WRONG! That would eliminate a whole bunch of guns, even if you just look at the United States Military. They use bolt actoin rifles firing the same ammunition forcombat as hunters use. So if the supporters of this state bill do this right, people may not be able to purchase hunting rifles! No more .338 Lapua fun at 1800 yards. How are they going to setup the exceptions to the rules. This is just plain dumb.

Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, a publication of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, said such a ban would punish law-abiding citizens who own such guns.

"I don't care if my neighbor has a dozen of the things; ... as long as he's not hurting anyone or breaking any laws, leave him alone," Workman said.

He also said he doesn't consider the gun police say was used to kill Brenton an assault rifle.

GO DAVE WORKMAN!

"We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction,"

Absolutely not true. There are private owners of weapons of mass destruction, you just have to go through the proper channels and tax stamps to acquire some of them, tanks aren't even that hard to get if you've got the money for them. Ignorance is afoot.

Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners.

Oh, well worded, Rep. Kohl-Welles, well worded. "No, we won't take your weapons from you, that is if you satisfy our background checks. For the rest of you punks, we're taking away your right to own the weapons by preemptive strike." Twisted words that misguide and mislead. Poppycock!

She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

It is a blatant violation and shows disrespect and disregard for the United States Constitution. You are preventing the right to bear arms through preemption.

"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

That line needs to be replayed over and over for this fool. Semi-automatic weapons, during the framing of our Constitution? Did they envision automobiles, cell phones, and televisions? They didn't bloody exist! This is why they said, FIREARMS! It is all encompassing, if you want to debate that a firearm means non-military style guns, then bring it on. I love to see a good debate-ass-wupping to someone that deserves it.

Washintonian_For_Liberty · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

State lawmakers to seek ban on sales of semi-automatic weapons

Click to expand...

Oh my, that is just dumb legislation!

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

Click to expand...

In place of non-military style semi-automatic weapons? DUMB! People of Washington, don't let it happen! Even beyond the argument that it can set a precedence to limit other rights, it's just plain dumb!

The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

Click to expand...

And how do they plan on doing background checks on people that already have the rifles? Does WA already have a list of "assault weapon" owners on file somewhere? Foolishness either way.

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.

Click to expand...

And how are they going to make that determination exactly?

"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.

Click to expand...

That goes with my question above! That is plain WRONG! That would eliminate a whole bunch of guns, even if you just look at the United States Military. They use bolt actoin rifles firing the same ammunition forcombat as hunters use. So if the supporters of this state bill do this right, people may not be able to purchase hunting rifles! No more .338 Lapua fun at 1800 yards. How are they going to setup the exceptions to the rules. This is just plain dumb.

Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, a publication of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, said such a ban would punish law-abiding citizens who own such guns.

"I don't care if my neighbor has a dozen of the things; ... as long as he's not hurting anyone or breaking any laws, leave him alone," Workman said.

He also said he doesn't consider the gun police say was used to kill Brenton an assault rifle.

Click to expand...

GO DAVE WORKMAN!

"We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction,"

Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. There are private owners of weapons of mass destruction, you just have to go through the proper channels and tax stamps to acquire some of them, tanks aren't even that hard to get if you've got the money for them. Ignorance is afoot.

Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners.

Click to expand...

Oh, well worded, Rep. Kohl-Welles, well worded. "No, we won't take your weapons from you, that is if you satisfy our background checks. For the rest of you punks, we're taking away your right to own the weapons by preemptive strike." Twisted words that misguide and mislead. Poppycock!

She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

It is a blatant violation and shows disrespect and disregard for the United States Constitution. You are preventing the right to bear arms through preemption.

"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

Click to expand...

That line needs to be replayed over and over for this fool. Semi-automatic weapons, during the framing of our Constitution? Did they envision automobiles, cell phones, and televisions? They didn't bloody exist! This is why they said, FIREARMS! It is all encompassing, if you want to debate that a firearm means non-military style guns, then bring it on. I love to see a good debate-ass-wupping to someone that deserves it.

What he said ^!

kito109654 · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

Wow, the anti's are in full swing here in WA. I was living in a fantasy thinking that this wouldn't happen.

autosurgeon · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

Knee jerk stupidity that will do no good... sounds like typical political crap!

Michigander · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners

As in they don't want to force another Waco, but they wouldn't really mind if it happens that way.

kito109654 · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

Michigander wrote:

Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners

Click to expand...

As in they don't want to force another Waco, but they wouldn't really mind if it happens that way.

Part of their meeting this morning was suggesting that if the ban was put into effect, more background checks would be done on current "aussault weapons" owners and that "home inspections" would be performed to make sure people are lockup up their guns "correctly." That is, if the anti's had their way.

Scary thoughts.

tekshogun · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

kito109654 wrote:

Michigander wrote:

Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners

Click to expand...

As in they don't want to force another Waco, but they wouldn't really mind if it happens that way.

Click to expand...

Part of their meeting this morning was suggesting that if the ban was put into effect, more background checks would be done on current "aussault weapons" owners and that "home inspections" would be performed to make sure people are lockup up their guns "correctly." That is, if the anti's had their way.

Scary thoughts.

That is absolutely no good. Do any other states do home inspections like this? I can see them doing this in some places where people may have children, for guns in general (I don't agree with that if it does happen) and I know the BATFE has some authority to inspect FFL holders (collectors, dealers, manufacturers, etc) but that is with some limitation I do believe.

PrayingForWar · Dec 17, 2009

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

There are two major flaws in this article as it relates to the Second Amendment.

"We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction," he said."

"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked."

First, the issue about "tanks or bazookas". When the Second Amendment was written, the term "arms" referred to weapons which could be carried on or about the person. Most people would classify these as small arms in general terms.

The second is also frequently is raised by anti-gun people; that the Founders could not possibly have envisioned the weapons of today. What they did envision and what the intent of the Second Amendment is regarding this concept is that the people be armed with small arms which are compatible with those used by the military. M16's and their clones would be correct. The Swiss do this. If you doubt this was the meaning, check out United States v Miller.

It also begs the question if the founders considered any advancements in weaponry. They most certainly did realize better technology would be invented, yet they made no effort for theGov't to regulate it. Surely, they couldn't concieve an AR15, or they would have invented it. One thing is for sure, they had intimate knowledge of just how deadly and destructive the black powder weapons of their time were, yet they made no attempt to curtail any private manufacture or ownership of any of the most destructive and deadly devices available in their day.

Why is this over looked?

tekshogun · Dec 18, 2009

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

It also begs the question if the founders considered any advancements in weaponry. They most certainly did realize better technology would be invented, yet they made no effort for theGov't to regulate it. Surely, they couldn't concieve an AR15, or they would have invented it. One thing is for sure, they had intimate knowledge of just how deadly and destructive the black powder weapons of their time were, yet they made no attempt to curtail any private manufacture or ownership of any of the most destructive and deadly devices available in their day.

Why is this over looked?

Because some jackasses either down right hate the 2nd Amendment and some people want to debate the meaning of commas when it should be clear that the meaning should be obvious.

SlackwareRobert · Dec 18, 2009

imported post

VA Lawyer wrote:

"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about."

Other than maybe some .50 BMG precision rifles, does the army use anything that is not a selective fire weapon?

I hate to cause panic, but I know the 1911 colt 45 is a military used sidearm.
The question is can the state prove it was ever used in war.

Our forefathers wanted the people to be able to stop tyrants who abuse their
power in office. How is a slingshot to be used to stop a tank?
No, our forefathers wanted the citizens to have access to the same weapons
as the government so they could not be oppressed by them.

I could live with the legislation as being told by the lying SOB's. As we haven't had
a war since 1945, any weapon made since could never have been used in a war so
would be exempt. But since they are lying, and want to ban everything.......

Can a state override the federal gov? I pay the feds for my machine gun, can the
state then make owning it a crime? I though conflicting laws put feds first.

President Obama tells the rusians that it is just a defensive missle nothing
to fear. Yet put one in your yard, and the feds will swoop in before the cement
dries and cart you away. I am not bothered about my neighbor having a bazooka,
if he is a nut case I can outdraw one in a heart beat, if he is responsible person
I am greatful for the help repelling Janet Reno like AG when they show up to
slaughter my family. Either way by knowing your nieghbor you have increased
your safety. It is the government who will use those weapons against us that I fear.

kito109654 · Dec 18, 2009

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

It also begs the question if the founders considered any advancements in weaponry. They most certainly did realize better technology would be invented, yet they made no effort for theGov't to regulate it. Surely, they couldn't concieve an AR15, or they would have invented it. One thing is for sure, they had intimate knowledge of just how deadly and destructive the black powder weapons of their time were, yet they made no attempt to curtail any private manufacture or ownership of any of the most destructive and deadly devices available in their day.

Why is this over looked?

That is a very good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Washington State lawmakers to seek ban on military-style weapons

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member