Morvandium Wrote:It's interesting to read these "discussions".
First, a small question ... it seems that FFLs are allowed to still own high capacity magazines, and to sell them to LEOs. I'm not familiar with Washtington's other laws, but does this mean that a range run by an FFL could rent out high capacity magazines for range usage? (Something similar to the way there are FFL stores + ranges that rent Class III full auto machine guns or silencers?)
How I feel:
While I'd prefer to see handgun magazine capacities higher at either 15 or 17, I have no issues with magazine limits as a concept. Their implementations should be more nuanced. A magazine limit alone is not an infringement on my rights or anyone else's, in my eyes. That said, I could be convinced that perhaps 10 is unreasonable in favor of 12 or 15 -- this is where data becomes more important than philosophy. Just like a speed limit. There's no moral justification for having a SPECIFIC speed limit, but there is justification for having speed limits in general. And I think gun owners need to hear other gun owners who have this opinion speak up.
When the only argument against a specific magazine limit legislation that has votes to pass is "YOU can't have magazine limits because MY RIGHTS, WHAAAA", then uninformed liberals legislators will determine some capacity (like 10) that makes sense to them (because it's a round number) without realizing that more logical capacity limits could be determined by analyzing types of firearms and their usage in crime and self defense, and then citing these factors in the reasoning for a specific value.
The refusal of well informed gun enthusiasts and professionals to even discuss a logical magazine capacity is one of the reasons why stupid capacities like 10 get passed. I can and have sat down, with basic visual aids, and convinced people that are for a magazine limit of 10 that 15, 17, or even 21 for handguns is a lot more logical of a number, simply because of the market, gun design, typical firearm usage, and practicality of enforcement. Same for why silencers should be totally legal, or why muzzle devices shouldn't be restricted in the states that they are. Nothing about 2nd amendment philosophy even had to come up in these discussions; it was just facts. The same things works when discussing how much ammunition I keep on hand. I explain why. I break down how many different types of ammunition I have (calibers, weights, bullet types), and how they have different applications (including breaking in new barrels) -- suddenly numbers that seemed really scary to a non gun enthusiast (only 2k-5k rounds) are revealed to be a collection of sets of much lower quantities. (This all said, there are people on both sides of any IIA discussion that will never move to a middle ground, but the middle ground is where society lives, if it lives at all.)
Why I feel that way:
First, I think the 2A is as absolute as the 1A -- there ARE limitations to all rights (including LIFE) based on balancing all the rights citizens are afforded. A fundamental problem with having so many rights is they can conflict with each other. "Well regulated" has meaning.
The only reason I own 30 round PMAGS is in case SHTF, and I have to defend my government against something like Jan. 6 happening in a more widespread manner across the country. (Same reason I have rifle rated body armor--not for daily use.) WI, where I live, has no magazine limits, but I don't feel a desire to use magazines over 15-20 rounds in my rifles or pistols (depending on cartridge and firearm). I prefer slow and accurate shooting (target and hunting), and don't do 3-gun (or similar) and find no enjoyment in mag-dump style plinking -- nothing against either, but not my thing. (Heck, some of my ARs uppers are currently configured as bolt guns because that's how I prefer to shoot.)
I reject the slippery slope logical fallacies as what they are -- logical fallacies, not logical arguments. Not every regulation on guns is a stepping stone to something further. (That said, I never thought conservative extremists would try to ban life-saving medical care for a woman having a miscarriage when they went after abortion rights, but, just like with gun laws, when people who don't understand the subject write the laws, things can and do go wrong. Facts, not just ideology, are necessary for writing laws.)
A final note:
The way Washington's law is written, from what I've read, seems designed to slowly dry up the supply of high capacity magazines through economic strangulation over time, rather than a heavy handed confiscation approach. It doesn't need more laws to accomplish this. The enforcement mechanism has criminal penalties, but a big portion is civil enforcement under the Washington's Consumer Protection Act, which includes "OFFERING" high capacity magazines for sale/distribution. (The criminal penalties don't seem to include any for OFFERING the sale/distribution of them.)
All the 2A sanctuary sheriffs, etc., won't matter compared to how manufacturers and supplier behavior changes, specifically reputable online distributors not shipping 11+ round magazines to non-FFLs in WA anymore. The law will shift most of that state's economic demand for magazines to 10 round magazines (as WA citizens replace old magazines over time). As more states have enacted magazine capacities, this will shift demand even more to the 10 round magazines. Change in demand will affect the price gap between 10 round mags and high capacity mags. (Have I mentioned I'd like to pay less for my 10 round PMAG than a 30 round PMAG?)
The sanctuary sheriffs here are political posturing to gain votes -- how many FFL holders will risk losing their license and violate this law and still sell high capacity magazines to the general public? Possibly a few, but likely it will be state agencies to shut them down, not local sheriffs. Chances are those same sheriffs who are "2A sanctuary" ones would only discover someone violating this law if it arises in a different investigation, and at that point it would not be up to the sheriff what charges a prosecutor brings once handed a case.
Your logic evades me.
A well regulated militia, "meaning citizens equipped and trained "
Being necessary to the security of a free state" self explanatory,
The right of the people, "meaning a citizen's right " ,
To keep and bear arms, " meaning to own and carry"
Shall not be infringed" self explanatory and absolute
So with your logic, this means citizens need to get permission, "which is not infringing" of approved arms, from the very same tyrannical government, "the citizens would need to fight against" ???
I think this is what is called mental gymnastics...
Mental Gymnastics happen when our brains spiral into destructive thought patternsmaking up excuses or arguments for unjustifiable decisions or situations.
As far as abortion rights or other non topic related to the 2ndA, I'll give a big pass..