Dodged a bullet

[dao]

Pun intended.
Washington State SB 5078 did not come up for a vote today on the House floor and therefore it cannot be voted on during the remainder of this year's legislative session. It previously passed in the Senate in early February. Washington State's Constitution states that if a bill that is not related to budget, an initiative, or a few other things does not come to a vote in both Houses by 5pm on the 54th day of the Session, it cannot be voted on for the remainder of that session. This Bill is dead at this time.
This Bill was important because among other things it would have capped magazines to 10 rounds or fewer in this State. They could be owned, and used for defense of the home of the owner, or used at the range but they could not be carried in a gun outside the home.

[getsome]

Sometimes I wonder if the people elected to make these laws have half a brain cell left working…….In Georgia there is a bill pending to allow Constitutional Carry without a permit from the County Probate Court to do so…….The Dems are going crazy saying it will be Dodge City in the streets if this passes………Well Atlanta is already Dodge City and the people doing the shooting and killing are teenage gang bangers who aren’t old enough to get a permit for their stolen guns…….Just last night a man with his wife and child made the mistake of pulling into a gas station just as rival gangs started shooting and the news showed the yellow markers in the parking lot and there was one with 36 on it and unfortunately the man was hit by one of those rounds and died filling up his car…….Last week a group of 5 teens went to a car dealership at 3am and were confronted by a security guard whom they shot in the head and killed……In both cases Police arrested 16 year olds and are still hunting the others……….Law abiding citizens don’t commit crimes, punk criminals are the ones to worry about because they give a finger to the law……

[dao]

I guess I didn't see this loophole. I just got this email reply from my district Rep.

"Actually, all they have to do is call the bill up prior to 5:00 pm to consider it…which they did. We are debating amendments now…."

[dao]

Damn, it passed. We're now officially a socialist state.

[Armybrat]

Civil disobedience worked for the left.

[DavidR]

Leftists see what’s happening In Ukraine and want to disarm American citizens. Draw your own conclusions.

[dao]

Civil disobedience worked for the left.

Partially because they don't get prosecuted. But if you're not a leftist you could end up being held as a political prisoner, indefinitely. And I'm sure the law will ultimately be levied against you to its fullest extent. Which is also why laws like this end up victimizing the law-abiding more than anyone else.

[JohnR]

What are they gonna do? Stop you and ask to see how many rounds are in your mags? Doubtful. They seem to rarely prosecute the gun related crimes already on the books.

[Bawanna]

I'm surprised there are still so many Hi Cap mags around. I just came from a gunshow, pretty pathetic lately but there were lots of mags and I expected sky high prices but although too high as usual not out of the usual.
The stores around here are loaded with 30rd MagPul mags, 100's of them and still 12-15 bucks a shot.
I pay little attention to most of the firearm laws (big brother if your watching, stick it!)
Came home from the show empty handed as usual. One guy had several Krags, rifles and carbines but just out of my reach. Also has a pretty nice uncut 1917 Enfield that was reasonably priced but just didn't want it bad enough I guess.

[dao]

On the extremely slight chance that I would need to defend myself with a gun, the odds are even less that I would need more than ten rounds. But if my luck is that bad and I do, I don't want to add anything to the situation that would help an overzealous DA or money-seeking civil attorney. Especially when I have options that will allow me a better chance of needing less than 11 rounds to end a situation before they are expended. I guess what it comes down to is that I am law-abiding as much as I can be. I'll abide by this stupid law as long as I am able to without having to resort to using sticks and stones.

[JohnR]

Carried by six vs. prosecuted by one?

[dao]

Yeah I hear you. But at my age the last thing I want to go through is the hassle of defending myself against a stupid law, or the aggravation of having to pay a lawyer with money that I don't have in order to keep me out of prison and/or in my own home. I haven't got many years left and I'd like them to be golden ones.

[jeepster09]

Hopefully more people will start paying attention to elections. ESPECIALLY the primaries....not enough people vote and the special interest stack the deck with clowns.
Elections have consequences. We all need to be out there supporting/helping the good ones get in office. These laws are a DIRECT RESULT of elections were people were asleep at the wheel.

[dao]

I have a question out to my district Rep, which he will likely not answer until next week, if at all. Nowhere in the Bill does it say anything about the "use" of "large capacity magazines".

What I wrote to my Rep, Ed Orcutt, was:
"In reading the attached Engrossed Substitute Bill I do not see a Section in which an owner in possession of a magazine which can hold in excess of 10 rounds of ammunition, which he or she legally owned prior to passage of this Bill, can no longer do so. Or to use said magazines legally after its passage. Rather it states:
(Section 1, Page 2, lines 18-23)
18 ...In this
19 volatile atmosphere, the legislature declares that it is time to
20 enhance public health and safety by limiting the sale of large
21 capacity magazines. The legislature intends to limit the prospective
22 sale of large capacity magazines, while allowing existing legal
23 owners to retain the large capacity magazines they currently own."

I also just watched a Youtube video by William Kirk who is a Bellevue lawyer, and founder of the channel Washington Gun Law. He broke the Bill down into layman terms but strangely he also did not speak to whether or not this Bill in any way prohibits the use of these mags by those who legally own them, or under what conditions they might be prohibited. Kirk also said that during the debates on the Floor last night the "those Dems who crafted the Bill stressed that" this Bill was not intended to affect the possession of those who already own them after 7/1/22, but rather its intent is to: "increase public safety by prohibiting the manufacture, importation, distribution, selling, and offering for sale of large capacity magazines, and by providing limited exemptions applicable to licensed firearms manufacturers and dealers for purposes of sale to armed forces branches and law enforcement agencies for purposes of sale or transfer outside the state"


What I'm thinking is that either I'm missing something here, or that either the Legislature did too, or that they aren't really intending to stop us from owning, carrying, and using them so long as we legally owned them prior to the Bill's enactment in July.

If there are any lawyers here, or those otherwise interested enough to read the Bill, it and details surrounding it can be found here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?year=2022&billnumber=5078&initiative=false

[JohnR]

If use isn’t outlawed, it’s legal.

[Armybrat]

Partially because they don't get prosecuted. But if you're not a leftist you could end up being held as a political prisoner, indefinitely. And I'm sure the law will ultimately be levied against you to its fullest extent. Which is also why laws like this end up victimizing the law-abiding more than anyone else.
Yeh, you do have a point there.

[Bawanna]

That's why the law is so insanely stupid. Basically mags already out there are ok, but not after 7/22. So how do we know when the mag was produced/sold/purchased etc etc etc........
Sort of like when the mandatory firearm transfer went into effect even with private sales and even family. Who's to say when the transfer actually occurred.

[dao]

I did hear back from Ed Orcutt again, which begged another question to him. I'm waiting on that reply now.
From all that I can see, and neither he nor W. Kirk of Washington Gun Law have so far refuted it, the law does not prevent ownership by those who legally owned them prior to July of this year, nor does it speak to the use of them by those same people. It ONLY speaks to "prohibiting the manufacture, importation, distribution, selling, and offering for sale of large capacity magazines". If my interpretation of this is correct then those of us who already own them are good to go. Until at least next year's legislative session. I'm probably wrong, but I'm also hopeful.
And you are spot on Colonel, if this is what the law says, and doesn't say, then it would be essentially unenforceable. So...if that is the case I guess we should be thankful that the Dems are apparently as stupid as the Bill they authored.

[Bawanna]

Bingo! They really are that stupid. Unless they somehow create an all out ban and force sheep to turn in any hi cap mags which will never happen, it's unenforceable. But they created a bill so they think they are earning their keep which they of course aren't.

[dustnchips]

the answer is to buy high capacity mags for every gun you might want to own in the future before july

[jeepster09]

This is how our government works....they do it in baby steps. Just like seat belt laws, start out requiring with no penalty, then they slip in penalty later stating that they need to to get compliance.

[dao]

Baby steps perhaps. But for now at least I don't see anything in this Bill, and neither did my Rep, that specifically precludes the use of magazines that are already in our possession legally, prior to 7/1/22. He spoke of the Dems intent, though he did not elaborate on what that intent might be. But from a legal standpoint, and I admit that I am not a lawyer or a student of law, I don't believe we are necessarily subject to the intent of what they may be trying to do with a piece of legislation, we are subject to what the laws they pass specifically state. Am I wrong?

Here are the key parts of the Bill (bolding and italicizing below are mine)

Brief Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill

Prohibits the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale, and offer for
sale of large capacity magazines, subject to exemptions.

Establishes that violations of these restrictions are a gross misdemeanor.
Provides that distributing, selling, offering for sale, or facilitating the
sale, distribution, or transfer of a large capacity magazine online, is
actionable under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

#############

Summary of Bill:
Restrictions on Large Capacity Magazines.
No person in Washington may manufacture, import, distribute, sell, or offer for sale any
large capacity magazine. "Large capacity magazine" is defined as an ammunition feeding
device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, or any conversion
kit, part, or combination of parts, from which such a device can be assembled if those parts
are in possession of or under the control of the same person, but shall not be construed to
include any of the following: (1) an ammunition feeding device that has been permanently
altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition; (2) a 22 caliber
tube ammunition feeding device; or (3) a tubular magazine that is contained in a leveraction
firearm.

I've tried to attach the entire Summary Report

[Bawanna]

"I admit that I am not a lawyer or a student of law,"

Saved yourself, if you were you'd be on the naughty list.

[Planedude]

Soooooo... riddle me this???

If I buy thirty "high cap" mags this June and I was to drop dead in two years, then I leave the mags and the firearms to my grandson, who was underage to buy them in July of 2022 but, is old enough to own them at the time of my passing, what does the dumb arse law have to say then?
He did not buy the mags from anyone, or obtain them on the sly, so my grandson should be a legal owner as should his grandson after him... right?
If I'm wrong here, then the law far more stupid than the idiots writing it.

Just saying.

[Armybrat]

Several months ago I bought 10 more new Magpul Pmags (30 rounders) for $89 plus shipping, even though I no longer own an AR15. Gave them to my sons who have the old ones. I may just order ten more if the dealer runs that special again, because I’ve been thinking of buying an AR pistol for myself (Radical Firearms 10.5” in .5.56).

[dao]

Well I've heard, read and seen enough now to convince me that this Bill in its current form is not going to affect us in any way insofar as having and using the mags we currently have. And that its true intent is to follow along with the methods of other States who opened the door a crack, got their foot into it, and then used it later to swing the door wide open with future, much more restrictive amendments to it. Or to slam it shut behind them on our ability to defend ourselves without infringement as it were.
If you have >10rd mags now you're good to go. For now. Though if you have receipts they might come in handy in a trial if it were to come to that so save them. But if you don't have any mags of larger capacity, or enough, before 7/1/22 it would be wise to buy at least a mininum of what you may need before then, and again save your receipts. What it does put a serious damper on is being able to buy a gun which would ship with >10rd mags. That will no longer be an option for us in Northern Kommifornia once the Bill takes effect.
There is a Case still in the higher courts (Duncan vs. the State of California?), the decision of which could effect us here, and any potential amendments to this Bill after it has been decided.
This is a warning shot across the bow as it were, and a clear signal that the Socialist Dems in the State of WA after coming for our guns. If they have their way we will be limited to what guns we can have in a Kommifornia-esque roster and getting and/or keeping our CCW might become as hard as it is in other States, though NY's law on that is still up for debate in the SCOTUS, which would of course also affect us here.
If only the memes that we see, which boil things down to black and white, and right and wrong so succinctly could be used to open the eyes and minds of liberals. Unfortunately what makes perfect sense has little to no effect on their thought process, being conditioned and hived to follow their leaders, as they have been.

[JohnR]

We shouldn't need a friggin lawyer just to know if our private personal property is legal to use or not. To quote jocko, fokk 'em.

[Bawanna]

We had hi cap mag bans before, same deal. It was a temporary thing as I recall and it expired. I wouldn't give this crap a seconds thought. That's where all the pre ban, post ban, BS came about. Far as ordering guns with hi cap mags, most outfits offer 10 rounders to accommodate the poor souls in California. That would be my only concern is if they keep up, the sellers on Gunbroker and similar will post no sales to California or Washington which of course is exactly what they want to happen.

[dao]

All true Colonel. The first ban was Clinton era federal. That being said not all gun models are offered as MA/CA/NJ/etc variants. So if there is a model that you really want, and it's new but it doesn't come in a 10rd package we could be out of luck. I just recently bought a MA compliant P365X because it is the only 365X variant that comes with a manual safety, which I want in a striker fired non-Kahr gun, and that comes with 10rd mags. I immediately ordered 15rd mags for it so I'm good to go on it. But after July I could be out of luck on some models. Fortunately without a roster there are other models that are desirable, which do come in a 10rd package that we can choose from.
Chipping away is the name of the dems' game because they're disingenuous, crafty, and insidiously evil. Without some help from the Supreme Court or a Conservative majority in our State Legislature we're likely not too long out from California's draconian laws.

[Bawanna]

CA or MA compliant usually is a deal breaker for me. I wasn't aware they made a manual safety 365 for MA. I wouldn't mind having that myself. I'd probably never use the safety but would like it there if I had to do unnatural stuff like put it in my pocket.

[dao]

My mistake, not the 365X that was MA compliant, but the P320X. The 320X is only available with a manual safety if you buy the MA compliant model. The M18 is always equipped with the manual safety because of it's military contract beginning, but the P320X Series which has a slightly smaller grip than the medium carry that comes on the M18 can only be had right now in the 10rd MA variant if you want a manual safety on it.
The 365X comes with and without the manual safety, your choice, and both of those variants can come with 2 12rd mags. They also have two CT / HI / NJ / NY compliant variants with or without a manual safety that come with 2 10rd mags, but are not MA compliant.

I picked up a 365X, and a 320X MA compliant model recently. I used to have an M18 but sold it because at the time I did not trust it, even though it had a manual safety. Bad move on my part as it was made after their recall and was every bit as safe as those made currently are. But I'm not as comfortable holstering any weapon that I cannot thumb the hammer on as I am with those that I can. But with the right holster, good habits, and a manual safety I'm as comfortable as I'm going to get and enough to now own and carry them.