Washington State AW ban ? Impact on Aero?
- Thread starter HiBC
- Start date
Unlike previous bills, if the actual text is available to the public, I wasn't able to find it. Lots of stuff on the progress of the bill, and descriptions of what it will do, but not the actual language in it.
That makes me wonder.....
from what has been said, it bans semi auto assault weapons and will go into effect the day Inslee signs it. NO grace period. seems to be pretty much the gun banner's wish list every thing prohibited other than you can keep what youi already own as of the effective date of the law. can't buy any instate, can't buy out of state and bring them in, can't sell them instate, and your kids can't inherit them.
No mention of selling out of state, so presumably that is still a legal option. Nothing I know of at this point would prohibit a maker located in WA from selling the banned items outside of WA. But, my knowledge of what the new law ACTUALLY says is nil.
Multiple people, including some in the WA legisature have said, the legal challenges (it is unconstitutional) are ready and will be filed before the ink from the Gov's pen is dry.
Sorry I can't be more specific but this seems to be yet another of the "can't tell you what's in it until we make it a law" things. Makes me wonder how that is even legal, but its been done on the Fed level, at least once in recent memory.
That makes me wonder.....
from what has been said, it bans semi auto assault weapons and will go into effect the day Inslee signs it. NO grace period. seems to be pretty much the gun banner's wish list every thing prohibited other than you can keep what youi already own as of the effective date of the law. can't buy any instate, can't buy out of state and bring them in, can't sell them instate, and your kids can't inherit them.
No mention of selling out of state, so presumably that is still a legal option. Nothing I know of at this point would prohibit a maker located in WA from selling the banned items outside of WA. But, my knowledge of what the new law ACTUALLY says is nil.
Multiple people, including some in the WA legisature have said, the legal challenges (it is unconstitutional) are ready and will be filed before the ink from the Gov's pen is dry.
Sorry I can't be more specific but this seems to be yet another of the "can't tell you what's in it until we make it a law" things. Makes me wonder how that is even legal, but its been done on the Fed level, at least once in recent memory.
For me it's disgusting/disheartening that they propose and pass laws that they know won't stand up to scrutiny.
There are no consequences for doing it though.
A bill to create some consequences has been proposed and it heartens me but I realize it has the proverbial snowball's chance of actually getting passed into law.
It's the 'Respect for the 2nd Amendment Act'.
https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/publ...nd-amendment-act-to-codify-right-to-bear-arms
https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/publ...2C16B510B8BC98D8DC74C0D74B38B4C2.oll23192.pdf
Aguila Blanca
Staff
But when they propose (and often enact) such crazy laws, they ALWAYS say they "respect the 2nd Amendment." The problem is, their version of the 2nd Amendment is that "the people" have a right to possess single shot muzzle loaders. Their view of the 2A is that it only applies to firearms that existed at the time the 2A was written.
They choose to ignore the fact that they don't apply the same logic to modern printing technology and modern forms of electronic, digital communication.
They choose to ignore the fact that they don't apply the same logic to modern printing technology and modern forms of electronic, digital communication.
There are consequences. They happen every election day.
The fact that we seldom toss out the "bad actors" doesn't mean there are no consequences. It means we (the people) are not doing enough to make them FACE those consequences.
Inslee knows this. He just doesn't think it can happen to HIM, again....
It happened in 94. It OUGHT to happen in 24. doubt it will, The big lesson Inslee and the others in that party "learned" from 94 wasn't not to push stupid gun control laws, it was not to push them in an election year.....
YARC! YARC! YARC! (You're absolutely right, commander.)
(No, I wasn't in the Navy, just read it in a Daniel Gallery book---all of his books are highly recommended.)
The above quote is well and truly correct but I'm in the state of Minnesota, soon to be known as the 'California of the North' where Democrats control the state house, the state senate (by the slimmest of majorities) and Governor's office and we started this year with a record $17 BILLION surplus of money in the state treasury and we are going to get tax INCREASES 'cause of all the new programs being rammed, er, implemented.
Red Flag laws and Universal Background checks are probably going to be decided this week. Wish us luck.
Good Luck!
In WA, Inslee (the same guy who crowed he was the deciding vote on the Fed 94 AWB) also signed into law requirements for a 10 day waiting period for ALL firearms purchases , and a requirement that all gun buyers provide proof of haven taken "safety training", along with the bill banning purchase or sale of what they list as "assault weapons".
Court challenges have already been filed. Now, we obey the law, as written, and hope for eventually overturning it.
That's our system. IT can work, but a necessary first step is to stop electing the people who listen only to the mob yelling the loudest.
In WA, Inslee (the same guy who crowed he was the deciding vote on the Fed 94 AWB) also signed into law requirements for a 10 day waiting period for ALL firearms purchases , and a requirement that all gun buyers provide proof of haven taken "safety training", along with the bill banning purchase or sale of what they list as "assault weapons".
Court challenges have already been filed. Now, we obey the law, as written, and hope for eventually overturning it.
That's our system. IT can work, but a necessary first step is to stop electing the people who listen only to the mob yelling the loudest.