Semi-automatic rifle ban passes in Washington State

Personal Finances Living Below Your Means
1

https://apnews.com/article/semiautomatic-rifle-ban-washington-adbbc5bc0d3b92da0122a91d42bcd4f6?fbclid=IwAR0n2_amCrjvDEdgu70CFKq2NV3_lQoTRCTloXaTBN8IP1ECs8XjFNtw80o

Likely to be signed.

Bans sale of listed weapons, not possession.

“The Washington law would block the sale, distribution, manufacture and importation of more than 50 gun models, including AR-15s, AK-47s and similar style rifles. These guns fire one bullet per trigger pull and automatically reload for a subsequent shot. Some exemptions are included for sales to law enforcement agencies and the military in Washington. The measure does not bar the possession of the weapons by people who already have them.”

5 Likes
2

And likely to be unconstitutional.

Cheers!
Murph

4 Likes
3

Why? Even Scalia said while people can own guns that doesn’t mean any gun of any kind. Assault rifles were banned in the 90’s and there was no challenge. Of course this is a different court, but there is no right that is “absolute”, not “free” speech, not “any kind of religion”, and certainly not “any kind of gun”.

3 Likes
4

I was curious about the exactly categorization of the rifles, what the rules are, but the news reports are all pretty much identical to the one already linked. I did learn one extra bit… nine other states (plus DC) already have such bans.

2 Likes
5

Wikipedia reports the Federal Assault Rifle ban was challenged repeatedly in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

All the challenges were unsuccessful. However, it was not challenged under the Second Amendment.

When or if the Washington law goes to the Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see how they say the “militia clause” translates to modern times.

It would be ironic if the NRA or gun advocates took the law to the Supreme Court and ended up getting its coverage severely limited. The fact that the earlier law was not challenged under the Second Amendment makes you think they were unwilling to take that risk.

And that in turn suggests that those who think we need stronger gun laws should pursue a court challenge to ask the Supreme Court to better define those limits.

6 Likes
6

The devil (and potential unconstitutionality)is in the details, aka how one defines “assault rifle”.

Cheers!
Murph

3 Likes
7

The law is available for all to read. It lists a number of specific weapons, then lists some pretty specific characteristics. It looks well-defined to me.

—Peter

3 Likes
8

Washington’s definition is one of many…and yes it is clear. But clarity was not the issue under discussion.

What Washington state says constitutes an "Assault rifle may or may not be constitutional.

Let’s see what the Supreme Court says.

Murph

1 Like
9

You watch the Supremes. I’ll watch the rate of mass shootings in WA and we’ll see which one shows some results first.

–Peter

PS - 8 mass shootings in the US so far this week - about the average rate for this year. 7 dead, 33 injured in total. How many more guns do we need to make things safer? We’ve already got more than one gun per US resident (including children). Do we need two per resident? Three? How many to make it safe?

2 Likes
10

This will be my last word on this thread since it will obviously evolve into the standard TMF/METAR debate about which is the problem: the guns used in a mass shooting or the person who chooses to do such horrible things.

Why has our society produced so many of these people? Guns have always been around (indeed, a greater percentage of people owned firearms in the past), but mass murderers were relatively rare until the past few decades.

Breakdown of family and societal values? Influence of violence on TV and movies almost constant from the day kids are born? There are many more, but the point is that this is the root cause issue. Until we solve for this, we are treating symptoms and using band aids.

When an airliner goes down, it is a BIG media event. Yet every single week of 2022 an “airliner” went down on America’s highways (388/day killed). What if all media outlets had to show/tell the names and photos of these people every day? Maybe our driving habits would change?

Mass murders get the same type of big coverage. Yet, on the streets of one town… Chicago, there is, essence, a mass shooting every week (695 homicides in 2022-13/week), yet we rarely see that on the national news. More than three times the people were killed in Chicago than in all the mass murders of 2022 nationwide:

“Two hundred ten people died in the country’s 42 mass killings in 2022, according to the USA TODAY/Associated Press/Northeastern University mass killing database.”

Maybe constant media exposure nationwide would cause people to focus on the more important causal problems if the total number of murders of all kinds got intense focus (26,031 in 2022), causing people to focus on the root causes of the problem versus the tool used.

The debate about “assault rifles” is currently in focus, but many folks want to ban all guns. Cities have done this, yet criminals and crazies will find a way. Personally, I want a gun for my protection from the bad guys that are multiplying since things like defund the police, etc.

Your mileage may vary, but I choose to keep my family safe, because in many places in this country, no one else will. So rant on…and I hope you and yours stay safe from the crazy people our society has helped create

Cheers!
Murph
( Note that guns can also be used for good: " the Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day…"

4 Likes
11

“Watch the rate of mass shootings in WA.”

With so many guns out there differences may be subtle or take a long time.

On the other hand, how often do we hear of shooters who bought the gun recently for the planned shooting?

Looks like a reasonable idea to me. Better background checks could help too!!

3 Likes
12

That shooters often buy guns just before the shootings makes you think a cooling off period–say 15 days–might reduce the carnage.

To avoid cheating, requiring that the newly purchased gun be held in escrow for 15 days at the local police station (or sheriff’s office) could be effective. It would mean police met the person buying the gun. They would be able to provide info on subjects like self defense, stand your ground, and trespassers will be shot.

Recall that some states control liquor sales by selling only from state stores. Suppose guns were sold only by state gun stores. The regulations would be followed. And the state would control which guns are sold in their state.

8 Likes
13

And this is posted in “living below your means” because …?

3 Likes
14

This is the kind of statistic that is meaningless. Also, more people drown in China than die of old age in Arkansas.

I must not have gotten the memo. When did “Chicago” become the poster boy for gun violence? On a per capita basis you are more likely to be killed in Columbus, Ohio. Also Cleveland, Ohio. Also Dayton, Ohio.

Also Baton Rouge, Birmingham, and Baltimore. Also Kansas City, Richmond, and Birmingham. Also Peoria, Columbia, SC, and Cincinnati, Ohio. In fact Chicago comes in 28th in “rates of homicide per 100,000 inhabitants.”

Oh wait, oh wait! I’m beginning to see. Was this the memo?

Here’s the first sentence of the article:

There are certain U.S. cities that have consistently battled [violent crime], particularly homicide — throughout the past three decades: Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, even New York City.

Further down, much further down, their own chart shows Chicago at #15. New York? Not in the Top 15. But just writing it, and broadcasting it, and writing it, and broadcasting it makes it seem those “cities” are hellholes of violence.

After all, a story about “Dayton, Ohio” being #5 isn’t going to track with the slant they want, does it? Kansas City? Cleveland? Richmond, VA? Miami Gardens, Florida??? (#12).

They don’t have divorce in Asia? There are no video games in Australia? Societal values haven’t changed in Europe? Why does this only affect the US? It couldn’t have anything to do with the availability of guns could it?

Hard to imagine people living in so much fear they feel they have to have deadly weapons at their disposal all the time. Then again, with the War on Christmas, the Invasion of the Trans-People, the Drug Mules from Mexico swarming everywhere, and all the other selective reporting, alarmist language, over generalization and conspiracy laden BS that gets pumped out at you daily, depending of course on which media choices you make, perhaps it’s understandable.

“Fear” is a great a terrible thing. It is only superseded by ignorance. PS: Your family is much safer without a gun in the house than with.

5 Likes
15

This is a consumer issue.

2 Likes
17

Suit yourself. Flagged.

18

Progressives Convinced Us to Get a Gun - WSJ

2 Likes
19

Another one:

And another:

And another voice for gun safety:

Oh, there’s this:

I could keep going, it’s sadly so easy to find these. Day after day after day.

And, well, just scanning today’s headlines I can see how having lots more guns makes EVERYONE just so much safer. Can’t you?

1 Like
20