“ gun control “

[Jake Watrous]

The NRA used to champion gun control and restrictive legislation because of all the mob violence in the 1930s. It even sponsored gun bills.

That changed in the 1970s in reaction to what it saw as overreach legislation aimed at curbing violence in the civil rights and other protest movements. It was felt a National gun owner registry was an infringement and went beyond “well regulated”.

I'd love it if the NRA would step in and help draft sensible legislation that could help curb gun violence like it used to and not just work to block legislation.

 

[Roper]

Roper,

Thanks for the heads up. I've known since before the legislative session began that Gov. Inslee was proposing some kind of firearms purchase and possession permit, but no details were provided. Now I know about the details.

HB 1240 is pretty basic about prohibited the sale of assault rifles. For purposes of such a law, the definition of an assault rifle is pretty good. Most hunting rifles won't be affected, but a pretty fair group of varmint rifles look like they fit and would be banned. Members here may want to talk with their representative(s) about this, especially if they are a co-sponsor.

HB 1143 is the bill that has very broad implications. Anyone who wants to buy any firearm must first obtain a permit to do so. The initial cost for this permit is $25 (but may and likely would be increased in subsequent bienniums). And in order to apply for a purchase permit, we have to submit certification of completing a firearms safety course within the last 5 years from a certified trainer. Who knows how much this training course might cost.

I think HB 1143 is well intended, but aside from being unconstitutional, I think it's fraught with problems. We already pay for a background check under the federal NCICS. So now we'll pay an additional $25 for the state permit that includes an expanded background check, among other things. Is this reasonable? And with the allowance for future permit price increases, how much is reasonable to charge to buy a firearm under the 2A?

I think firearm safety training is not only a good idea, it doesn't seem inherently inconsistent with the 2A (second amendment). However, I took basic firearm safety training when I was 12 years old from the old WDG wildlife agent in order to get a hunting license. OK, so that was a long time ago. But Mrs. Salmo and I both took the NRA firearm safety training course a few years ago as a refresher for me and first time for her. But it was more than 5 years ago. So if I want to buy another firearm, I have to take the class again in order to be timely AND buy a permit to purchase. This could get old and be an ongoing nagging cost.

The most interesting feature in the bill, IMO, is that the act of applying for a firearm purchase permit serves as a waiver of mental health confidentiality. The good thing is that it could finally be possible to flag a mentally impaired person and prevent them from acquiring a gun. Of course it's also likely illegal as hell and unconstitutional as well. The ACLU will have a field day over this.

The upshot, again IMO, is 1143 however well intentioned is more likely than not unconstitutional, and I will contact my Representative urging his opposition to it. If the price of criticism is to offer an alternative, my alternative is that Federal universal background checks coupled with a 3 - 10 day waiting period will achieve as much reduction in firearm violence with far less imposition on individual 2A rights, if any, and at less cost, so should be supported instead.

Hot damn! Someone took the time to read the bills! Thanks!
The real clusterf*ck I allowing towns and cities to make their own rules. Drive into the wrong area with a state concealed carry permit and face possible arrest and prosecution. Oh, and there is no such thing as an assault rifle, it was made up by politicians. I could go on but I’m supposed to be biting my tongue…

 

[nwbobber]

Wayne Lapierre joined the NRA in 1978. Before that he had no interest in guns at all, he was a conservative lobbyist. The change in the NRA is highly correlated to his influence.

 

[Roper]

Wayne Lapierre joined the NRA in 1978. Before that he had no interest in guns at all, he was a conservative lobbyist. The change in the NRA is highly correlated to his influence.

No one man has that much influence…JMHO

 

[nwbobber]

I would hope not, but I have witnessed the change, as a member. I am not in favor of it, but I have only one vote. Todays NRA seems more like a political organization than an organization of gun owners to promote marksmanship and safety. The NRA-ILA is a separate organization that is legally constructed to be able to spend donated money on political causes. The NRA is a 501(c)4 organization that is supposedly prohibited from political use of donated money, but I would argue that the publications I receive from them are decidedly political. While one man may not be the entire reason for the change, I believe that the leader of an organization has quite a bit more influence than a rank and file member. The fact that the organization has changed to match his worldview before he had any interest in firearms is a bit of anecdotal evidence for sure, but you know some of what we need to make it through our life, is the ability to judge a threat based on the limited facts we DO know. Give me more information that I can verify, and if that leads me to a different conclusion I am happy to change my mind.

 

[SurfnFish]

6 year old kids with access to handguns should = prison for parents

The NRA used to champion gun control and restrictive legislation because of all the mob violence in the 1930s. It even sponsored gun bills.

That changed in the 1970s in reaction to what it saw as overreach legislation aimed at curbing violence in the civil rights and other protest movements. It was felt a National gun owner registry was an infringement and went beyond “well regulated”.

I'd love it if the NRA would step in and help draft sensible legislation that could help curb gun violence like it used to and not just work to block legislation.

I was member of the NRA, starting as a young teen who took their safety course at a local range shooting .22 bolt action rifles. The NRA was all about gun safety.
When Lapierre became CEO, however, the NRA quickly morphed into the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, and gun safety took a back seat to fighting any potential legislation that could impact annual gun sales, and member dues became Lapierre's personal piggy bank to pay for his lavish lifestyle. Which is why they have lost millions of members, and Lapierre is facing felony charges.

An Illustrated Guide to the NRA’s Lavish Spending and Cozy Deals

How vendors and executives are bleeding the gun group dry.

www.thetrace.org

 

[Salmo_g]

Now we have a ton of gun control regulations (that don't achieve the desired outcome) and more than one mass shooting per day.

Weird huh? I'm quoting myself to try and get back on point. There are 2 proposed gun bills in the Legislature, backed by a lot of political horsepower. I'm refocusing on this because most firearms laws are emotion based and don't result in the desired outcome, assuming that the desired outcome is a reduction in firearm violence.

These 2 bills are different in that they do have the potential to reduce firearm violence, particularly HB 1143. HB 1240, which bans a fairly inclusive list of specific assault rifles might reduce mass shootings in WA. Something like 80 to 85% of mass shootings are committed with ARs, so this along with last year's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds could contribute to the desired outcome, although mass shootings are not common in WA. What I think we should be discussing is whether HB 1240 is constitutional since it only bans the sale of a particular style of firearm. I don't know, but I think it might pass Constitutional muster since there was a national ban for 10 years in the 90s - early 2000s.

HB 1143 could really contribute to a reduction in firearm violence, but it's most likely unconstitutional, and IMO overly burdensome and expensive. I don't think it's legal for the state to require me to buy a permit in order to then buy a firearm, and I'm concerned that the cost will skyrocket. Face it, state bureaucracy couldn't review an application and issue a permit to use the restroom for $25. They just can't. I think you know that too. Then too, as Roper pointed out, cities and counties could all have there own separate regulations and requirements, and we have a statewide clusterfvck of gun laws that make who knows what illegal in hopes of reducing firearm violence, remembering that most gun laws are emotionally based rather than on what the actual outcome might be.

 

[Flymph]

Self inflicted is not violence..
0ver 60% of gun deaths are suicides and of the remainder ( based on the last stats I read) somewhere around 80% is gang/ drug related. I think those stats came from maybe the FBI. Or the CDC. in 2015 or something like that.

Self inflicted is not violence . . .

 

[jaredoconnor]

Was in West Australia on a month long surf hang in 96' when the Port Arthur assault rifle massacre of 35 happened. Within two weeks an agreement had been brokered across the respective political parties to make self-loading weapons illegal. During the following grace period buy back program 640,000 weapons were turned in.
Since 1996, mass shootings in Australia - 0
Mass shootings in the US in 2021 alone - 691

Gun control activists often bring up Australia, but there's little value in doing so; they're very different countries. The way I see it, there's three main differences:

1. Australian culture has a stronger sentiment of "the greater good". American culture is, by design, more self-centered.
2. The US has a far higher volume of guns, per capita.
3. The US has more issues, regarding trust in the police and the government.

Those three points seem like they will make progress painfully slow (ie. generational). Folks seem to keep hoping for some kind of socio-political breakthrough, but it isn't going to happen. Worse still, there's a lot of evidence that moonshots do nothing but shut down any kind of reasonable discussion and improvement.

On a lighter note...

 

[Rob Allen]

Just one point. The second ammendment was written specifically to let private citizens buy military style arms..
Any way you slice it. The people have the constitutional right to keep and bear an ar-15 with a 30 round standard capacity magazine.

 

[flybill]

Just one point. The second ammendment was written specifically to let private citizens buy military style arms..
Any way you slice it. The people have the constitutional right to keep and bear an ar-15 with a 30 round standard capacity magazine.

That's your interpretation.. the AR-15 and 30 round capacity mag's didn't exist when it was written.. And sure in the military / miltia you're welcome to have access to both! That was the point.. Maybe you need to start your own milita or join the military?

So unfortunately you're wrong..

I personally think the AR-15 is fine to own, but wouldn't have a problem with a longer waiting period for it or a background check. We're talking regulations, not your right to own it..

 

[_WW_]

The second ammendment was written specifically to let private citizens buy military style arms..

Unless you were in the room you cannot say that.

 

[_WW_]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I can easily see where this grants the people of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state. I do not see where it specifically states "firearms" for every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Honestly, I've got more important things on my mind than how many bullets are in my magazine. Until you and yours are affected by gun violence I doubt that your opinion will change.

If a democratic, one person, one vote, society as a whole is ok with the random wholesale slaughter of it's populace then we will get what we deserve. After all, we do have an over population problem...

 

[jaredoconnor]

Just one point. The second ammendment was written specifically to let private citizens buy military style arms..
Any way you slice it. The people have the constitutional right to keep and bear an ar-15 with a 30 round standard capacity magazine.

The constitution isn't static and is supposed be changed, to fit the times. The amendment itself is literally proof of this. The founders expected people to use their brains, not treat the constitution like an immutable religious text.

When the second amendment was written, kids weren't being massacred in schools. The risk of a tyrannical government is a laughable, compared to what is actually happening every day in America.

There's a lot of room for interpretation, in any case.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Every word in the constitution was chosen for a reason, so that it would last for hundreds of years. "Well regulated" has significance, or it would not have been included. Requiring education or evaluation meets the definition of "well regulated". Making guns easily accessible for psychopaths and hooligans is the complete opposite of "well regulated".

 

[Roper]

A friend of mine in the UK says that since guns are scarce there gangs have resorted to knives. The point is, if someone wants to hurt/kill another, they’ll find a way. We already have enough laws and whackos ignore them. Only decent moral people obey laws. These proposed bills are just feel good measures, it won’t prevent any shooting. JMHO…

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

The people have the constitutional right to keep and bear an ar-15 with a 30 round standard capacity magazine.

Not disagreeing with you, but did you notice how in washington state a 30 round mag is no longer standard (even though it is literally the mag that comes standard with the gun)? It's now a 'high capacity' mag. So you can't have one.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

On a lighter note...

Never heard of this comic - guy is hilarious!! I'll have to check out some more of his stuff.

 

[_WW_]

A friend of mine in the UK says that since guns are scarce there gangs have resorted to knives. The point is, if someone wants to hurt/kill another, they’ll find a way. We already have enough laws and whackos ignore them. Only decent moral people obey laws. These proposed bills are just feel good measures, it won’t prevent any shooting. JMHO…

So you think there will be a mass knifing from a hotel window?
I can pick up a stick off the ground and hurt somebody. It just won't be as efficient as an AR-15 with a thirty round mag. However, as soon as they raise the bag limit on elk from 1 to 30 I'll be getting one.

 

[SurfnFish]

A friend of mine in the UK says that since guns are scarce there gangs have resorted to knives. The point is, if someone wants to hurt/kill another, they’ll find a way. We already have enough laws and whackos ignore them. Only decent moral people obey laws. These proposed bills are just feel good measures, it won’t prevent any shooting. JMHO…

Someone with a knife cannot kill/maim 30 pople in 30 seconds, theyt have to engage one person at a time in close quarters. And anyone with training knows how to fight a knife using whatever is available. And if a group decides to overwhelm a knife wielder, they will win every time. There is zero defense against an AR aimed at you from 30 feet away.
The pro-AR crowd argument always comes down to "I need my AR for the civil war coming." Sad way to look at the future of America. There will be no civil war, there is already an ongoing social war of how people want to live, which will determine where they will live. Blue or red, plenty of states to choose from. Don't like the one you're living in, move.
Regarding AR's. They were designed for one thing, killing human beings. To have such weapons readily available to the sickest, mentally unstable, and most angry among us is just wrong. And they have become the icon for groups who protest in mock combat gear as if they are ready for war, strutting around unarmed civilians to intimidate at peaceful protests, even voting sites.
And how many of them have actually served? Or want to serve their country in actual combat? None would be the correct anwer. Because those that have served on the front lines know first hand the horrific damage an assault rifle does, and why would anyone want to inflict that on their fellow Americans, regardless of their political differences.
No one needs an assault rifle to protect themselves, there is a reason why it is called an 'assault' rifle.

 

[jaredoconnor]

A friend of mine in the UK says that since guns are scarce there gangs have resorted to knives. The point is, if someone wants to hurt/kill another, they’ll find a way. We already have enough laws and whackos ignore them. Only decent moral people obey laws. These proposed bills are just feel good measures, it won’t prevent any shooting. JMHO…

It's really hard to massacre people with a knife. That's the point that people care about, not stopping violence altogether.

I agree that these proposals make no sense. It's the sort of aforementioned impractical moonshot that shuts down any real improvement.

I'm pro gun, anti massacre. I think most sensible people have the same position. If I could have my wish, it would be this...

• Access to bolt action (and similar) firearms remains as it is.
• Access to all other firearms have requirements that are proportional to their risk. For example, "assault rifles" are only available to people that have undergone rigorous education and evaluation.