Current Events > Washington state passed some rather draconic gun regulation proposals.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The proposal itself is 30 pages long, but in a nutshell, it raises the age requirement of any firearm purchase to 21, adds a mandatory 10-day waiting period, even with a state approved CPL and clean record, an "enhanced" background check for any semiautomatic rifle, and a mandatory training course attendance for every purchase(I think).

Also in the proposal it was added that if your firearms are stolen or otherwise taken from you by unauthorized parties(anyone under 21), you're at fault, up to and including a felony charge. So for example if you report a stolen firearm, it's possible that you can get charged for it too, if it was deemed as inadequate storage that led to the theft. Problem is that's entirely subjective as to what is "enough security" to not be at fault.

I'm all for tightening up leaks in the system and actually enforcing what's already on the books, but this I feel, isn't the right step forward. It was moderately close too, 60/40 voting wise, though nearly every single eastern county voted against. Only took a handful of western counties to pass.

As a Washingtonian, I'm not sold on the ideas proposed. It looks misguided at best, tackling the symptoms rather than the actual causes. An enhanced background check means essentially nothing, as there's already a NICS in place to stop people that lost their gun rights from purchasing a firearm. Just feels like more blaming the gun legislation, and now possibly blaming the victim legislation.
---

Good.
---

i'm a little iffy on the stolen part, but otherwise

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Good.

---

Seems pretty reasonable to me. If you don't lock your firearm up and it gets used in a crime or an accident occurs with it you are at least partially responsible. The law should reflect that.

pauIie posted...

i'm a little iffy on the stolen part, but otherwise

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Good.

---

pauIie posted...

i'm a little iffy on the stolen part, but otherwise

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Good.

This. I am also a Washingtonian with lots of family who owns guns, a set of cousins who own one of the largest gun stores on the entire west coast, and I plan to own at least one gun myself in the future. I'm all for pretty tight gun laws.
---

What the hell is an "enhanced" background check, and why wasn't "enough security" for a firearm clearly defined?

Raising the age to 21 definitely seems like a stupid feel-good measure

Waiting periods, whatever. Sometimes discourages crimes of passion type shit when people think about the dumb shit they wanna do for 10 days.
---

I think waiting periods for all gun purchases is something we should do. And that's really the only thing from the proposal I felt was okay.
---

Oh no you have to wait to purchase a gun how will people in washington survive
---

Sounds fine to me
---

Hexenherz posted...

Oh no you have to wait to purchase a gun how will people in washington survive

To be fair there is more to it than that.
---

I don't dislike a single thing outlined in that proposal.
---

DrascalKiller posted...

Seems pretty reasonable to me. If you don't lock your firearm up and it gets used in a crime or an accident occurs with it you are at least partially responsible. The law should reflect that.

Problem is there's no set in stone definition of adequate storage, to my knowledge. So for example if an entire safe is stolen so that it can be opened at the criminal's convenience, and then are used for a crime, that can still be grounds for punishment. It'd be like someone breaking into your locked car, running someone over, and having you get blamed since you didn't have an aftermarket battery isolator switch installed, or had your window partially cracked to vent heat. I can also see this as accelerating private sales without a transfer being done. Washington requires private sales to be done at an FFL to transfer ownership, but it goes largely unenforced and is impossible to gauge how effective it was, since it's a private sale that for years, was either without paperwork, or at most a bill of sales. With all the extra steps and fees involved with a transfer, there's less incentive now than ever to do it, letting guns simply disappear into the ethos.

Also, has a waiting period ever stopped a mass shooting? Is it implied someone with murderous intent will cool off after 3, 5, or 10 business days? I never understood that, especially if said person has a state approved license to conceal carry, which means their history was combed through in more detail to be approved.

And in regards to the 21 years of age, I dunno. That's taking rights away from a legal adult. Before it was just handguns restricted to 21 and over, but long guns were still permitted, and thus didn't fully infringe. But now, it's long guns too. Most, if not all of them. Shaky ground.

Hindsight is always 20/20 however, so I guess we'll see what this does or doesn't do. To my knowledge WA isn't known for rampant gun violence or even mass shootings(though I think something happened in King county not too long ago), so I don't know what or who these laws are for. There's hundreds of regulatons and laws already in place that if enforced, would prevent sales or transfers to criminals. Problem is they're left unenforced or unreported.
---

Hexenherz posted...

Oh no you have to wait to purchase a gun how will people in washington survive

Well it can be obnoxious for those living outside cities. Find a gun you like in a store in the city and then have to go home and drive all the way back later just to pick it up
(I lived in Pullman, WA going to school at WSU and bought a shotgun in Spokane when I was there, and thats a 75 mile drive one way)

Though these days guess youd just have to go for buying a gun online and then picking it up when it settles
---

Malcrasternus posted...

Also, has a waiting period ever stopped a mass shooting? Is it implied someone with murderous intent will cool off after 3, 5, or 10 business days? I never understood that, especially if said person has a state approved license to conceal carry, which means their history was combed through in more detail to be approved.

Waiting periods give time for someone to intervene. Largely useful for reducing suicides.
---

Pitlord_Special posted...

Though these days guess youd just have to go for buying a gun online and then picking it up when it settles

Which is a good point that I didn't think about. But the gunshop itself makes little to no money on that, and wouldn't allow the store to survive. Without an FFL, you can't get that gun.

Plus, there are things called 80% lowers that require no serial number or background check to purchase, which I feel are also going to become more popular.
---

the whole thing is feel good legislature that throws on a lot of taxes and extra steps with added costs, of which a lot of it will hurt lower income familys and poorer people (like minorities) rather than merrily inconveniencing at worse the middle and upper class. especially the focus on "assault weapons" which take up practically no crime and yet because of its very very broad definitions something like a marlin 60 .22 with a tube fed magazine is the same as an AK just because they are both semi auto.

How, exactly, is it draconian?
---

Malcrasternus posted...

The proposal itself is 30 pages long, but in a nutshell, it raises the age requirement of any firearm purchase to 21, adds a mandatory 10-day waiting period, even with a state approved CPL and clean record, an "enhanced" background check for any semiautomatic rifle, and a mandatory training course attendance for every purchase(I think).

Annoying, but not quite "infringement".

Also in the proposal it was added that if your firearms are stolen or otherwise taken from you by unauthorized parties(anyone under 21), you're at fault, up to and including a felony charge. So for example if you report a stolen firearm, it's possible that you can get charged for it too, if it was deemed as inadequate storage that led to the theft. Problem is that's entirely subjective as to what is "enough security" to not be at fault.

Utter bullshit.

LordRazziel posted...

How, exactly, is it draconian?

Because it's a step away from "no rules on guns whatsoever."

That's how it works; the anti-gun-control crowd sees even the slightest regulation as tantamount to having armed soldiers breaking your door down and confiscating anything remotely gun-shaped in your home.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Annoying, but not quite "infringement".

I'd say it's borderline infringement. Definitely muddied waters, for sure. It's an adult with rights that the state prevents him from exercising. Pistols were first, but didn't infringe fully because long guns are a different group entirely. But now this wants to step into long guns and further divide it. "Assault weapons" have no concrete definition and can be almost anything. Long gun and handgun was easy. How do you define an assault weapon when almost anything can fit into that category?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Utter bullshit.

Indeed. These measures are far too vague and will either be impossible to enforce, or clarify in a court of law. But I can say for certain, it's going to be interesting to see what comes of this.
---

LinksLiege posted...

LordRazziel posted...

How, exactly, is it draconian?

Because it's a step away from "no rules on guns whatsoever."

That's how it works; the anti-gun-control crowd sees even the slightest regulation as tantamount to having armed soldiers breaking your door down and confiscating anything remotely gun-shaped in your home.

Remember that there was an outright national ban on guns with "assault features" for a decade. Didn't matter if you were law abiding or not. Too many features, it was banned. This was despite the fact that gun violence was already downward trending before the ban, and showed no dramatic change during. Statistically there's been less gun crime now than ever, despite record gun sales and CCW applications.

Just feels pointless to enact laws that at best do nothing, and at worst, criminalize those that didn't fall between the blurry lines enough.

It's like that lady that crossed state lines with ammo legal in her state, but not where she was visiting. She was jailed for that, and had to be pardoned by the mayor, iirc. If the result was jail time and a pardon, why have the law in the first place?
---

so basically 90% of rifles are now deemed "assault weapons". first it was assault rifle which has a clear definition, then they added assault weapon and only included certain features that magically made the weapon more deadly. now its revised again to include all 130 year old firearm technology. slippery slope indeed.

also "semiautomatic assault rifles"

fuck these people.

Dark_Spiret posted...

so basically 90% of rifles are now deemed "assault weapons". first it was assault rifle which has a clear definition, then they added assault weapon and only included certain features that magically made the weapon more deadly. now its revised again to include all 130 year old firearm technology. slippery slope indeed.

also "semiautomatic assault rifles"

fuck these people.

In the actual text itself, they're now calling any semiautomatic rifle a "semiautomatic assault rifle".

https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf

Gun control advocates have repeatedly misused the term "assault rifle" for years and years, now they have a law that calls any semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle". They have their fear mongering written into law.
---

Dark_Spiret posted...

so basically 90% of rifles are now deemed "assault weapons". first it was assault rifle which has a clear definition, then they added assault weapon and only included certain features that magically made the weapon more deadly. now its revised again to include all 130 year old firearm technology. slippery slope indeed.

also "semiautomatic assault rifles"

fuck these people.

If they can get these heavy restrictions in place on a .22 semiautomatic rifle by calling it an "assault rifle", then there's no reason they won't be able to the same for pretty much all non semiautomatics as well.
---

Just feels pointless to enact laws that at best do nothing, and at worst, criminalize those that didn't fall between the blurry lines enough.

At best do nothing

You sure are approaching this from a reasonable and unbiased position
---

Vagueness in law to one of two things

1. It ends up getting tossed out in court
2. It is unjust because the vagueness makes it uemforceable or too far reaching and either fails to stop the problem it is trying to solve, or leading to abuse/nonsensical arrests.
---

Regarding the provision about being at fault if an unauthorized person uses your gun and it wasn't secured properly, wouldn't that have applied to Sandy Hook?
---

pauIie posted...

i'm a little iffy on the stolen part, but otherwise

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Good.

this. i expected something ridiculous when i entered the topic but as a gun owner i have no problem with everything but the one caveat
---

Not draconian enough
---

Literally criminalizing the victims of theft.

Yay progressive gun laws!!
---

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

You sure are approaching this from a reasonable and unbiased position

Everyone is biased. Those who say they aren't are either lying, or trying to sell you something.

@0AbsoluteZero0

And for what it's worth, I'll reword it to,

"At best, do nothing that current laws don't already address."
---

I am biased toward what it says in the US Constitution:

"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."
---

byron posted...

Malcrasternus posted...

Problem is there's no set in stone definition of adequate storage, to my knowledge.

If there's no set definition then what is the point of the next sentence?

Malcrasternus posted...

So for example if an entire safe is stolen so that it can be opened at the criminal's convenience, and then are used for a crime, that can still be grounds for punishment.

Just making stuff up?

If there's no set line in the sand now, what makes my example invalid? Like I said it seems purely subjective as it stands right now. No mention of how sturdy a safe, if a gun locker is sufficent, if it needs to be bolted to the floor, if there needs to be a certain amount of locks between the gun and unauthorized people, or if it simply means just to use the gun lock most new guns come with. Which if so, great. Most guns come with one, and is good practice to use.
---

byron posted...

It states a gun owner can be criminally responsible if their gun gets into the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it. It said they could face a misdemeanor or even a felony charge of community endangerment due to unsafe storage. That is if a gun was not stored in a way to keep, what the law calls a "prohibited person" from getting to it. A prohibited person is defined as anyone who is not legally allowed to have a gun, a child or felon for example.

So what's safe, and unsafe? How strong of a safe? Does a simple sheet metal gunlocker meet criteria? If a tool is required to defeat the lock, does that still fall into fault of the owner for not having a sturdy enough storage?

Also, the first section about rifles falling into line with pistols is false. With a CPL, there's no waiting or hold once your name clears, which takes about as long as the 4473 form you need to fill out before purchase, which is a matter of minutes. There's only a waiting period if you don't have a CPL. And what safety training course? For hunting? This isn't for hunting. This is just to buy a firearm.

The next two sections however are great news.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Literally criminalizing the victims of theft.

Yay progressive gun laws!!

Apparently victim blaming is only awful if you're telling women not to get blackout drunk at parties.
---

I hope my health hangs on at least long enough so that I can see all the people celebrating draconian gun laws regretting that decision once we live in a country like China with high-tech cameras and mass police surveillance 24/7 everywhere.

The initiative allows the state to require firearms dealers to charge up to $25 to purchasers of a semi-automatic rifle to offset the costs of complying with the regulations. That fee could go up over time.

Lol, if you don't show proof of having firearms training. Hope that's either the hunting safety course, or something state-funded.

Fair enough on the storage definitions. Seems that it just makes it easier to villify someone if their definition of safely stored differs from a prosecutor however.

I'm still not convinced that going to 21 from 18 will do anything. Why was that so important?

And defining a semiauto as an assault style weapon isn't doing anyone any favors. Just shows off ignorance.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

The proposal itself is 30 pages long, but in a nutshell, it raises the age requirement of any firearm purchase to 21, adds a mandatory 10-day waiting period, even with a state approved CPL and clean record, an "enhanced" background check for any semiautomatic rifle, and a mandatory training course attendance for every purchase(I think).

Nice. This should be enacted country wide

only cops should have guns
---

Draconian? Draconian is watching an elementary school, concerts, and countless other public shootings occur and literally doing nothing about it
---

Malcrasternus posted...

And defining a semiauto as an assault style weapon isn't doing anyone any favors. Just shows off ignorance.

It is to set the stage for future confiscation.

now that you have to be 21 to buy a gun and 10/22s are classified as assault rifles the shootings in washington will stop
---

The NRA will sue in less than a week.

They always say gun control should be done at the state level and not federal, but when a state passes new laws, they try to stop it.
---

Good, hope it gets even stronger
---

Malcrasternus posted...

Problem is that's entirely subjective as to what is "enough security" to not be at fault.

You can walk in to a police station and ask them, they will tell you.
---