Washington Magazine Ban

[LR1955]

Guys in Washington:

Better get them before June or July (can't remember which).

After that, you won't be able to legally buy a magazine holding more than 10 rounds, won't be able to give yours away or sell them, won't be able to order any from outside the state, etc.

To appease the gun owners, the Governor has benevolently allowed us to keep the ones we have. But make no mistake about anything with the ilk that are in charge of Washington. They will go after any firearm they think they can ban.

LR-55

[montana]

I noticed the magazine ban does not include law enforcement. If these magazines are so dangerous to society then law enforcement should also be prevented from the use of these hazardous accessories.

As we all know, these leftist do understand the importance of standard capacity magazines and it would be stupid to handicap law enforcement by denying them the tools needed when engaging criminals.

Civilians encounter the very same dangerous criminals as law enforcement, so with the passing of this law they have deemed civilian lives to be less and is worth the risk of life and limb in their new cast system.. Some animals are more equal than others..

Of course this is only about control and another cut of a thousand against our freedom.....

[grayfox]

So true. Emblematic of the 2 classes in their end-goal society: ruling-class elites, and serfs.
Masters and slaves.
Plantation owners and plantation dwellers.

[grayfox]

A sheriff who is locally elected, and has a mind to do it, could "deputize" several of his county as law enforcement assistant/associates. I say the sheriff because they are typically elected and not hired by the legislature or county council, so cannot be fired... and take seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution.
That did occur here in Va under governor baby-killer and his 2A-hating minions.

[montana]

A sheriff who is locally elected, and has a mind to do it, could "deputize" several of his county as law enforcement assistant/associates. I say the sheriff because they are typically elected and not hired by the legislature or county council, so cannot be fired... and take seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution.
That did occur here in Va under governor baby-killer and his 2A-hating minions.

If my fading memory is right, I believe the Sheriff in the town of Republic in eastern Washington stated he would not enforce any anti 2dA laws that would be passed. Of course many will just go across state lines to resupply..

[LR1955]

If my fading memory is right, I believe the Sheriff in the town of Republic in eastern Washington stated he would not enforce any anti 2dA laws that would be passed. Of course many will just go across state lines to resupply..

That is more common than most think in Eastern Wa.

It is difficult to understand what this ban on the sale of magazines over ten rounds is supposed to do. Other than be a straw man the left can use to enact a total ban.

LR-55

[dammitman]

these types of bans are ALWAYS just a stepping stone to more aggressive ones. whats to keep a person from moving there and bringing all they want of over 10 round mags? and who is to say if i wanted to sell my extras to a buddy there? there is only one thing and it is of course they would have to REGISTER every legal mag in the state and if they were to catch someone with a over 10 round mag not registered to that person, bam, your a felon. now while your sitting in a cell they would go to your home and confiscate every firearm and ammo and mag you had.

[dammitman]

you pass a law that cannot be enforced without passing additional laws,,,,

[StoneHendge]

Having gone through this when I was in Colorado, my suggestion to WA residents would be if there is a pistol you are interested in that doesn't come with a reduced capacity configuration, buy it, especially some of the sporty 17+ rd 9mms. Once the ban goes into effect, buying them gets very difficult if not impossible.

[Big_John]

Having gone through this when I was in Colorado, my suggestion to WA residents would be if there is a pistol you are interested in that doesn't come with a reduced capacity configuration, buy it, especially some of the sporty 17+ rd 9mms. Once the ban goes into effect, buying them gets very difficult if not impossible.

There have been multiple County Sheriff's in Colorado say and simply refuse to enforce anything about mags.... Of course if you go into the liberal hell holes of Denver or Boulder County.... you are on your own.

I will say that my CC is a 12 rounder (G3C) so no nervousness with me anywhere.

"The magazine limit prompted ammunition maker Magpul to leave Colorado and move its operations to Wyoming. The law does grandfather in large-capacity magazines purchased before the ban went into effect."

https://www.cpr.org/2020/06/29/colorado-...-is-legal/


.............

[Morvandium]

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.

[LR1955]

Having gone through this when I was in Colorado, my suggestion to WA residents would be if there is a pistol you are interested in that doesn't come with a reduced capacity configuration, buy it, especially some of the sporty 17+ rd 9mms. Once the ban goes into effect, buying them gets very difficult if not impossible.

SH:

This came close to passing a year ago and I jumped through my 'buttocks' to buy a bunch of 27 round Glock mags for my PCC. As for pistols? I am not enamored by the ergonomics of the current high cap pistols so will stick with the 1911 frames which are generally ten or less rounds anyway. I will say that I think this law is a direct attack against the law abiding gun owners by democrats who have a visceral hatred for anyone who owns a gun, except themselves of course.

LR-55

[LR1955]

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.

Oh boy, this one ought to get interesting real fast.

[grayfox]

SH:

This came close to passing a year ago and I jumped through my 'buttocks' to buy a bunch of 27 round Glock mags for my PCC. As for pistols? I am not enamored by the ergonomics of the current high cap pistols so will stick with the 1911 frames which are generally ten or less rounds anyway. I will say that I think this law is a direct attack against the law abiding gun owners by democrats who have a visceral hatred for anyone who owns a gun, except themselves of course.

LR-55

It is just that - a direct attack. Maybe a flanking maneuver, but an attack just the same. With some politeness, anyone who does not see that is already half-defeated.
We went through a bunch of this in Va for a couple of years, while governor babykiller/blackface was in power and his leftist cronies in the Legislature. Their calling card was the phrase "commonsense gun controls" - which had nothing to do with common nor with sense. Banning suppressors, banning "assault weapons" or anything that had "features" of assault weapons, confiscation without due process under guise of "mental health"... and they had more laws in hand to push after those went forward.

The mag limit was only a piece of their action, and thankfully a couple of southwestern dem state senators killed all but a couple of their attack laws.

Their intent is to disarm the citizenry. They have had no problems with any mags, nor with any guns, ARs, etc, held by criminals, nor with antifa-fascists, nor with any of the other leftist attack mobs, witness the apathy of them to all the violence in Va Beach. Fairfax county, charlottesville, and theoir applause for the violence in Wa state, Calif, chicago, etc etc.

The "Jan 6" "cronies" that might be guilty of something, are, if any, only the infiltrators and feds who were there to instigate, for Queen Nancy et al. The 1A by the way, provides for the people to petition their government, which is what at least 95% of those gathered there that day were doing. But the leftist and the Queen's reaction was to brand them all traitors... and she has since built the capital bldg into America's version of the "Forbidden City" complete with walls.

Remember the first thing Hitler did when he got into power was to disarm all citizens, so only his SS and criminals had any guns. Then the crystall nacht and night of the long knives, and systematic murdering of Jewish people began. I say, remember those tyrants because they are the heroes of the totalitarian left. It wasn't only Jewish people who were their targets, it was anyone they wanted to brand. The terms "left" and "right" have nothing to do with it, it is "tyrant" vs "freedom".

You can stay in denial all you want, but this is what they are after. It is not just a camel's nose poking into your tent... it is a grizzly bear's. And you are dinner.

[myrifle]

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.

WOW. Yea um yea ohhh. NOPE your on the wrong gun form.

[jasper2408]

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.

Don't the lefty's always have a boogeyman that they are going after?

So if they just let the state pass this one little no harm gun law (to protect the children or granny), that doesn't affect you, then they will leave everyone alone. Well that makes me feel better now since that means they won't try to tax my ammo or make me register my ammo when I purchase it or pay an extra tax on every gun I own every year or let BLM and Antifa shoot up the place without asking questions. Now I will sleep better knowing that is all they want.

It is funny, when something doesn't affect someone how tolerant they are to that cause. You need to wake up and see what is happening in this country. I am surprised that you own any guns as you just made a great argument for the left.

[montana]

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 patterns—making 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..

[grayfox]

The only thing I forgot to add was to bring the popcorn. A5 you want movie-butter or regular?

^^^+ 1 to jasper and Montana.

Tyrants are NEVER satisfied until you're dead.

[LR1955]

Conservative Extremist?

Morvandium -- using that term when discussing the 2A is not a good idea. At least not here.

A bit lacking in situational awareness as a minimum.

You want to agonize over some abortion law, do not do it here.

LR-55

[LRRPF52]

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?


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.

FFLs running ranges where people are “allowed” to exercise their enthusiasm for firearms has very little to do with inalienable rights.

An arbitrary restriction on the capability of arms enforced against citizens automatically places the citizens on less than a criminal standard (both private and public sector).

If I’m a criminal intent on harming or robbing the citizenry in any shape or form and I am able to strip them incrementally of their physical ability to protect themselves, I can gain the upper hand by leveraging their disarmament against them. This is predator strategy 101.

Speed limits are a false premise fallacy argument, the premise being that one’s right to self-protection is somehow equatable with modern highway travel in vehicles.

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.

Explain to me your middle ground on personal and home defense. I think the middle ground argument falls apart very quickly upon a basic analysis.

Are you willing to accept 50% losses during a burglary, including loss of life and limb, or would you prefer to live in extremis where you retain 100% of your family’s safety and property, and the offender is immediately discouraged, seriously injured, or slain?

How about 25% losses to property, family members, and bodily safety? What are you? Some kind of extremist?

See how the “middle ground” fallacy fails a basic inspection?

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.)

January 6th was a Riechstag false flag event designed to prevent multiple Senators and Congressmen from voting a no confidence voice vote in the Capitol Building, as the election was obviously flawed with multiple peculiarities we had never experienced before as a Nation, with a geriatric pedophile who was literally openly mocked during the DNC debates, magically got more votes than any other Presidential candidate in history, with his family’s corruption openly bragged about and exposed via the stupidity of Hunter and James Biden.

For the first time in generations, we had a President with actual groundswell support from the people who packed rallies, whereas Biden couldn’t attract flies even if he didn’t change his pederastic diaper for weeks. This was a guy that was forced out of the DNC primaries in 1988 for plagiarism, who not only supported segregation, but still defended his 1970s co-sponsoring of segregation legislation with KKK Senators of that era, and was called out on it by Cory Booker and Kamalah Harris during the DNC debates in 2020.

So it was no shock that multiple Senators and Congressmen were going to cast a no confidence vote in this “election”. The magnitude of election tampering, vote-counting cessation on election night, trucking-in ballots like Chinesium parts into LA Harbor, and Marxist operatives infested among as many precincts as possible in battleground States left a stench of election-rigging that was too raunchy to ignore, even for the careerists in DC.

False flag by the communist ANTIFA group helped distract everyone from the proceedings in the Capitol, which were interrupted by the ANTIFA ralliers and agent provocateurs. There is voluminous evidence showing these agents and their behavior on January 5th and 6th, none of whom were subpoenaed or charged in the events of Jan 6.

Which government are you intending to protect? The US is a government of, by, and for the people in our foundational documents, not of, by, and for traitors who have sold out to foreign and corporate interests. Those are our enemies, which anyone with a moderate level of brain cells remaining in 2022 needs no persuasion to recognize at this point.

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.

Bill of Rights has supremacy over State laws that violate the BOR, so Sheriffs who honor their oaths are in the higher ground legally, even though the State Capitols are filled with traitors and leftists who hate our Nation and its people.

CA already pioneered these anti-American strategies with “Assault weapons” and magazine bans. None of those laws are Constitutional even in the slightest. When you especially place this all in context of what happened in 1934, you start to realize we’re merely fighting on the edge over the scraps of the 2A with our backs to the wall. Small arms are almost inconsequential once the gloves come off when you don’t have the arms that were unmolested prior to 1934.