Edited: Washington’s Ballot Initiative 1639 has passed. What now?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've said, and outraged people, that the argument that AR's, etc. aren't true 'assault weapons' is a waste of time and counterproductive. It is angels on the head of pin to an atheist. It makes gun folks all a quiver when an anti uses the term. However, it won't stop a ban of all semis (which is now clearly the goal). Even in the gun world, the term has history.

I downloaded the

From its intro (2008):

Gun Digest Buyers Guide to Assault Weapons includes a variety of firearms that might be categorized as an “assault weapon” by those that have knowledge or interest in firearms. The main criteria for inclusion in this guide are that the firearm be semi-automatic and accept detachable magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. A few, such as the Barrett M-82 and SVD Draganov sniper rifle, have ten-round magazines but due to their design they are still included. While military type features such as a pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet mount or folding stock are found on many rifles, there are some guns found herein that have a more traditional “sporting” appearance. Some of this is due to legislation that dictates legality based on the appearance of the firearm.

Peterson, Phillip. Gun Digest Buyer's Guide To Assault Weapons (p. 4). F+W Media. Kindle Edition.

As of early 2008 there are several new manufacturers filling demand in the assault weapons market. There are currently more than twenty companies that make versions of the AR-15. The only difference in these lies in the quality of the parts used and a few proprietary features that some are offering. Most makers of AR-style weapons are filling orders as fast as they can ship them. With some, production is three months or more behind. The same is true for AK-47/AKM series. There are at least a dozen U.S. manufactures that build new Kalashnikov rifles using new American receivers along with domestic and imported parts.

Peterson, Phillip. Gun Digest Buyer's Guide To Assault Weapons (p. 8). F+W Media. Kindle Edition.

You are not going to make the guns 'nice' by arguing about terms. If you argue that they are no more dangerous than hunting rifles (ban them as sniper rifles). Correcting that a 223 isn't high powered - who cares? Some nut killed 20, 30, 72 - shot 500 with a 223. Who cares that a AR-10 battle rifle is more powerful. Battle rifle - that is a hell of a term for the defending the guns as 'nice'.

You had better defend the guns as necessary for the purpose of the 2 Amend. as compare to cutesy I gotta ya - to antis over definitions. You see my gun is not really an assault rifle as it isn't like the one that Hitler finally approved of and his term. Reply - oh, you want to have a gun that looks like one that Hitler liked?

Smarter antigun folks will leap over the nitpicking. The foe are not idiots who chortle about the thing that goes up or that once you empty a clip, you throw it away. The foe are folks who known their stuff and will write comprehensive legislation to take out all semi guns.

Another rampage and such a ban might go right through Congress and Trump. Evidence for this claim comes from the NRA's vice presidential level when Charles Cotton said that except for the behind the scenes, manipulations of the NRA (which must be kept secret) - after Las Vegas, an unstoppable total AWB was in the works and would have been approved by the Congress and President. Now, whether this is true is a touch debatable but you get the drift. Current NRA claims are another issue.

[rickyrick]

I’ve always argued that the dangerous nature of firearms is the exact reason they are a right.

[44 AMP]

Reply - oh, you want to have a gun that looks like one that Hitler liked?

I would!
but then, I understand history, and firearms...differently than some people

Hitler's approval and bestowing a name is simply a historical fact. The rest is machts nichts. Has nothing to do with what the gun is, or isn't.

The foe are not idiots who chortle about the thing that goes up or that once you empty a clip, you throw it away. The foe are folks who known their stuff and will write comprehensive legislation to take out all semi guns.

I agree, but would add that the foe is both, and the most dangerous are the folks who know their stuff. The under-educated ranting congressman who only knows that they "need" to ban the shoulder thing that goes up is dangerous to our cause, as well, because they are the some of the people who vote such measures into law.

The unknown (to me) individuals who crafted the language used in WA 1639 were the more dangerous "informed" type. They didn't use any set of features as their definition, the way previous laws had, they simply took the definition of what makes a semi automatic a semi automatic and declared that they were now all semiautomatic assault rifles.

In hindsight, we probably shouldn't have wastes effort or energy trying to educate the unwilling. When confronted with people ranting about how bad, evil, dangerous, etc those guns are, might we have been better off to just say "so what? Read the Constitution! Now, go away, the adults are speaking..."

That would have been emotionally satisfying to me, but I can see where it wouldn't have played well in the kangaroo court of current public opinion.

[zukiphile]

It’s at least a little comical to pose the question “who cares?” while arguing the point. Note that your source does not support your point. The author makes specific reference to the legislative basis for the term “assault weapon”. He is not discussing the term “assault rifle”. Aside from the author’s text in your quote, is the title of the work, “Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons”.

I doubt anyone has missed your derision of accuracy.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

…cutesy I gotta ya … nitpicking.

Where the thing to be banned or regulated isn’t the thing described except in a tortured statutory definition, that is no mere nit, and people interested in a matter don’t ordinarily consider the truth about it merely “cute”.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

You had better defend the guns as necessary for the purpose of the 2 Amend. as compare[d] to cutesy I gotta ya - to antis over definitions.

Why present the false choice? There is no tension between defense of the rights contained in the 2d Am. and addressing the apparent deceptions in the rhetoric of an adversary.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

You see my gun is not really an assault rifle as it isn't like the one that Hitler finally approved of and his term. Reply - oh, you want to have a gun that looks like one that Hitler liked?

Smarter antigun folks will leap over the nitpicking.

I don’t see reduction ad hitlerum is a smart response, but that may be a matter of taste.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

The foe are not idiots who chortle about the thing that goes up or that once you empty a clip, you throw it away. The foe are folks who known their stuff and will write comprehensive legislation to take out all semi guns.

That’s another false choice. People who know a great deal about arms may be hostile to the right, but we know that plenty of people who do not understand the issue well or with clarity, people you may deem “idiots”, people like Carolyn McCarthy, are also hostile to the right and have played an important role in passing legislation. We don't really think that the Washington voters who passed this initiative know "their stuff" about arms, do we?

If the thrust of one’s position is to oppose clarity and rest on false dichotomies, some re-evaluation is in order.

Does accuracy in language magically dispose of political challenges to exercise of a constitutionally protected right? Clearly not. Clarity is only a foundation. People who oppose the rights described in the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments all have their reasons for their positions, and simply being clear about what we are discussing will not be the entire argument. As a general matter, clarity helps better arguments, well poorer arguments may find support in error and fallacy.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

However, it won't stop a ban of all semis (which is now clearly the goal).

While I do not doubt that this is an intermediate goal, as a political matter, I think it is something like alcohol limits for drunk driving. Mothers against Drunk Driving once had reasonable arguments that blood alcohol levels were too high and penalties to low. Once they had blood alcohol limits reduced below the levels at which the great bulk of vehicular homicides involving alcohol take place, they still pressed for lower blood alcohol limits. There is a prohibitionist faction within that movement. People who want the state to enjoy a monopoly on the possession of effective arms have no reasoned basis for stopping at semiautomatic arms.

[rickyrick]

I’m actually surprised at the lack of alarm about this law amongst gun owners. Doesn’t bode well for the future.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by RR

I’m actually surprised at the lack of alarm about this law amongst gun owners. Doesn’t bode well for the future.

In addition to apathy being peoples' normal setting, I'd guess that lots of gun owners in Washington haven't given a lot of thought to it, and won't until they hear about a case involving the law. 1st, 2d and 4th Am. rights are ones of which many enjoy the benefits, but people often take them for granted until they encounter a problem themselves.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Zukiphile, as usual, you miss the real battlefront as you get lost in the picky-picky weeds of trying to impress the audience. You have little appreciation of the PR battle if you think 'weapon' vs. 'rifle' is of the slightest use in fighting bans.

I certainly wouldn't want your analyses to be a major part of any campaign to prevent the bans.

You are a prime example of most of the pedantic, irrevelance we see in some progun folks.

Yes, that's harsh. Maybe I should infract myself?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

Zukiphile, as usual, you miss the real battlefront as you get lost in the picky-picky weeds of trying to impress the audience. You have little appreciation of the PR battle if you think 'weapon' vs. 'rifle' is of the slightest use in fighting bans.

I certainly wouldn't want your analyses to be a major part of any campaign to prevent the bans.

You are a prime example of most of the pedantic, irrevelance we see in some progun folks.

Do I win a prize?

It isn't pedantry to explain to you that the source you offer in support of your point doesn't support it. This initiative involves a statutory definition of "assault rifle". Your source doesn't address that. Moreover, in a discussion of the lack of authenticity in a statutory definition, your offered source explicitly incorporates just such a synthetic reference. It isn't "picky-picky weeds" that people you don't think are foes of the right actually have a record of being foes to the right. Are the fallacies and errors you've offered important parts of a PR campaign?

That kind of fuzzy thinking is what brought you to your misunderstanding of Heller.

If being correct isn't interesting to you, that's fine. Opposing that sort of correction does animate you. It's poor reasoning to conclude that being correct misses "the real battlefront". It's bizarre to accuse me of trying to impress anyone by posting in a forum.

Yes, that's harsh. Maybe I should infract myself?

Why start now?

[44 AMP]

We don't really think that the Washington voters who passed this initiative know "their stuff" about arms, do we?

I think the Washington voters who passed 1639 nearly all live in the I-5 corridor, and swallowed the wolf ticket tv ads, (paid for by out of state money) telling them they had to pass this law to keep domestic abusers from getting guns, hook line and sinker. I saw only a few of those ads on the eastern side, but from what I heard they ran almost 24/7 on the west side in the weeks before the election.

I think nearly all those people (and waay too many of the rest of us) didn't read the details, and were only told a fraction of what was in 1639. I think most people thought it was just "another background check law" and it is much, much more than that.

IT is, after all way easier to just listen to that guy on the tv than it is to read through that stuffy boring voter pamphlet....

Especially if you don't have or think you have a personal stake in the issue. You still have the same vote as those who do...
This is the other pitfall of democracy..

[Ricklin]

You hit the nail on the head, that is exactly what happened.

I've lived on both sides on the Cascades over the years, I'm on the wet side now, thus I witnessed on the tube what you speak of.

I fought, to no avail. Darn near went door to door. I chose to focus on the fact that I know a lot of Washington residents, I'm a sales rep. I did my best to get the truth out effectively.
I want to quote that old Nancy Reagan? campaign, RIF. Reading is fundamental. One had to REALLY read the bill carefully to fully understand it, and most folks did not care enough to do so.

The downside to these flat screen TV's? When you throw your shoe at it, the screen breaks. No, I did not break my TV.

The bill was sold on the 'spin' all done up by a marketing firm.

[cjwils]

"paid for by out of state money"

Not true. Washington has several billionaires who give hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to pass anti-gun ballot measures. No out of state money is needed.

[Ricklin]

Those of you not at all familiar with the fine state of Washington don't recognize just how skewed the vote is here, East vs. West.
Or perhaps the better thought is Seattle metro vs. the rest of the state.

There are more than a couple of companies in the Seattle metro area that have made a lot of people millionaires. Microsoft of course comes immediately to mind, that's just the part of the iceberg that we can see.

My point is one heck of a lot of money, that tends to be liberal.

[L2R]

As others suggested, most folks probably don't care what was in the fine print.
I can only hope that they have over stepped enough to warrant more scrutiny in the near future.
Sad that this is our best hope. Our freedom continues to diminish and we hope someone with deep pockets and a sympathic heart notices.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

You are not going to make the guns 'nice' by arguing about terms. If you argue that they are no more dangerous than hunting rifles (ban them as sniper rifles). Correcting that a 223 isn't high powered - who cares? Some nut killed 20, 30, 72 - shot 500 with a 223. Who cares that a AR-10 battle rifle is more powerful. Battle rifle - that is a hell of a term for the defending the guns as 'nice'.

You had better defend the guns as necessary for the purpose of the 2 Amend. as compare to cutesy I gotta ya - to antis over definitions. You see my gun is not really an assault rifle as it isn't like the one that Hitler finally approved of and his term. Reply - oh, you want to have a gun that looks like one that Hitler liked?

Smarter antigun folks will leap over the nitpicking. The foe are not idiots who chortle about the thing that goes up or that once you empty a clip, you throw it away. The foe are folks who known their stuff and will write comprehensive legislation to take out all semi guns.

I agree. It is why I viscerally hate the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" to refer to AR-15s or the claims that ARs are not weapons of war. The whole point of the right to keep and bear arms is the right of the people to possess and use ARMS, i.e. tools of combat/war. War can be nation states fighting one another, or a people fighting a tyrannical government, or a person fighting an intruder or group of intruders into their home (because if someone is trying to maim and/or kill you, that person has declared a state of war on you and you are now engaged in combat with that person).

When Aristotle wrote in Politics about the importance of the people possessing arms for defense against the criminal element and defense against the government, he did not mean special "civilian" arms that have been "approved" by the State.

Another rampage and such a ban might go right through Congress and Trump. Evidence for this claim comes from the NRA's vice presidential level when Charles Cotton said that except for the behind the scenes, manipulations of the NRA (which must be kept secret) - after Las Vegas, an unstoppable total AWB was in the works and would have been approved by the Congress and President. Now, whether this is true is a touch debatable but you get the drift. Current NRA claims are another issue.

One of the things that needs to be made clear to the antis and the public is that, in response to the anti's always demanding, "When is the proper time to talk about gun control," the answer should be, "Never. It is never the time to talk about gun control and the subject of gun control should not even be up for discussion." An example I would use would be if say a Muslim used a bomb and blew up twenty people, and then another used a truck and drove over twenty, and say repeated attacks kept occurring. And then let's say there were calls to outlaw Islam in the country and/or have special watch placed on all Muslims, or require all Muslims to register with the government, special monitoring of mosques, banning of further construction of mosques, etc...well the answer to all of this I would argue should still be no, for the same reasons. Because you cannot go infringing on freedoms because of people abusing the freedom.

I would also use the argument about people who mock Islam and then there are Muslim terrorists threatening violence because of it, well you do not outlaw mocking of Islam regardless, because again, freedom of speech.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

I've said, and outraged people, that the argument that AR's, etc. aren't true 'assault weapons' is a waste of time and counterproductive. It is angels on the head of pin to an atheist. It makes gun folks all a quiver when an anti uses the term. However, it won't stop a ban of all semis (which is now clearly the goal). Even in the gun world, the term has history.

One point I did want to make is that arguing about "assault weapon" in terms of the arbitrariness of the term isn't so much about arguing with the gun haters as pointing things out to the fence sitters. There are many people who might support certain forms of gun control that we would not, but who would nevertheless see the silliness and unfairness in having gun control laws that make one a felon for possessing something like a retractable stock or a pistol grip on a rifle.

Now some such people might argue then to just ban all semiautomatics, but those would be the more anti-gun people I would think, not the middle-of-the-road ones as much.

[44 AMP]

to get a bit more back on track with the Washington law, (and away from "what are the best tactics" arguments for refuting gun control) I spoke with a friend who works at a local gun shop.

Since the effective date of the new law (July 1) the shop has sold half a dozen "semiautomatic assault rifles" (no, please don't argue, it is the terminology used in the law).

Now, its ten days later (call it a week, due to the holiday and the weekend), and they have sold half a dozen rifles under the new law. Before July 1, half a dozen rifles was half a days business last month. Admittedly the last few month's sales volumes were probably a bubble, due to the coming law, but for certain, things have slowed down now.

[rickyrick]

I was wondering if sales would slump off after the first.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

to get a bit more back on track with the Washington law, (and away from "what are the best tactics" arguments for refuting gun control) I spoke with a friend who works at a local gun shop.

Since the effective date of the new law (July 1) the shop has sold half a dozen "semiautomatic assault rifles" (no, please don't argue, it is the terminology used in the law).

Now, its ten days later (call it a week, due to the holiday and the weekend), and they have sold half a dozen rifles under the new law. Before July 1, half a dozen rifles was half a days business last month. Admittedly the last few month's sales volumes were probably a bubble, due to the coming law, but for certain, things have slowed down now.

What kind of rifles? The law bans AR-15s, or at least regular AR-15s, right? But not rifles in general, or handguns and shotguns. Are AR-15s their main business...?

[44 AMP]

What kind of rifles? The law bans AR-15s, or at least regular AR-15s, right? But not rifles in general, or handguns and shotguns. Are AR-15s their main business...?

The 1639 law covers a LOT of things, what applies to rifles is what I'm talking about here. It doesn't ban anything, directly. It redefines ALL semiauto rifles and names them "semiautomatic assault rifles". Under the definition in the law, ALL semi auto rifles are included. There is no list of good/bad features, no detachable magazine requirement, or stock design to put them on the list. ALL are covered, if they use the energy of a fired cartridge to load another cartridge.

The SALE of manually operated repeating rifles is not affected by the new law.

As of July 1 2019, there are a number of things that went into effect, some of them we are still trying to figure out...

No one under 21 can buy a semiauto assault rifle
there is a $25 charge (not sure if they call it a tax or a fee) for each semiauto rifle.
The buyer must provide the dealer with proof of having completed an approved safety course within the past 5 years....

There are several other provisions that apply but these are the main ones being dealt with right now. Others will be dealt with lawsuits...like the section that says that signing the 4473 gives the state the right to access your medical records...for just one there are others...

The shop who's drop in business I mentioned, is oriented to the "tactical" market primarily, but they do deal in everything.

At this point, according to the people I talk to, the state has provided no direction how to comply with the law. The police (around here) essentially (and unofficially) tell the dealers, "if they don't tell you, do what you think is right, we don't have any direction from the state, either"

I know there are legal challenges to the law lined up for court, but I don't know the current details. This one will be interesting to see how it works its way though the legal system.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

there is a $25 charge (not sure if they call it a tax or a fee) for each semiauto rifle.

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought if the $$$ don't go to pay for the cost of providing some governmental "service" (such as issuing a license, or the [alleged] cost of adding a firearm to a registry) it isn't a fee, it's a tax. As Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a five-legged dog.

[44 AMP]

Just checked, and they're calling it a fee, to offset the cost of the new requirements on semiautomatic assault rifles.

Not to exceed $25 ( adjustable each biennium to levels not to exceed the Consumer price index)

how..generous of them...

Oh, and it applies to each semiautomatic assault rifle purchased. SO, if you bought two ARs or an AR and a Ruger 10/22, you will fork over an extra $50 ($25 for each) to cover the increased cost of the paperwork.

and OH, dear, I nearly forgot the other thing, there is a 10 BUSINESS DAY WAIT required between filling out you application to purchase and allowed delivery.

get that clear in you head, too, forget the instant check Federal laws (which are still required to be done) the instant part is GONE.

STATE law now requires a 10 day wait. And, if I'm reading it right, if there are any questions about your eligibility to own a semiautomatic assault rifle, the state can put your application on "administrative hold" for up to 30 days.

there is a LOT more in the law, as well...

[zxcvbob]

Another ONE of the things 1639 does is order state access to medical records.

Any Doctors out there?? What are you going to do when WA state demands you give them access to (literally) thousands of citizens medical records, so the state can determine if those people meet the legal requirements to be allowed to own a semiautomatic assault rifle?
Seriously, what are you going to do? And how do you feel about the government ordering you to do it? What ethics do you follow? HIPPA privacy laws, or state gun control laws?? Seems to me there might be a wee bit of conflict there...

and oh, by the way, its not a one time access, it is continued access, so the state can conduct "periodic" reviews. 1639 isn't talking about individuals who might be judged a danger to themselves or others, its talking about every person who fills out a 4473 form and buys a semiautomatic assault rifle after July 1 2019, on...apparently forever after.

That's a very interesting question, and I don't see where any doctors have answered it. I believe they could refuse the request because it violates HIPPA, which is a federal law and preempts the state law. Any hospital risk managers here? (actually I think there are one or two, but they might not be watching this thread)

[rickyrick]

...which is a federal law and preempts the state law.

But... the west coast states will disregard federal law any time its suits their agenda. Some will argue, even in ‘gun friendly’ states that states’ rights trumps federal laws. They’ve already disregarded the constitution, in my opinion, when they allow the majority to vote away other’s constitutional rights. They don’t seem to like well regulated militias and I don’t see any protections for the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

[44 AMP]

OK, I got some clarification on the waiting period, for ALL FIREARMS, other than semiautomatic assault rifles, the wait is EITHER 10 business days, or when the background check comes through approved, which ever happens first.

ALL FIREARMS. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, repeaters or single shots, manually operated, and semi auto pistols and shotguns are all covered under this waiting period.

Semi automatic assault rifles (meaning all semi auto rifles, now) are slightly different, they require a 10 (business) day wait from the time of application to purchase before delivery.

SO, buy a pistol, wait 10 days, or until background check goes through approved, which ever comes first. Buy a Kar 98k Mauser, SAME THING.
Buy a Rem 870, OR an 1100, same thing.

Buy a Marlin model 60, or a Ruger 10/22 or an AR or AK or any semi rifle, wait 10 days, no matter if approval comes back before then, you still have to wait 10 days before the dealer can deliver your gun.

As to Doctors and the medical records thing, the law ORDERS them to make you medical records available. Period. And not just once when you purchase a semiautomatic assault rifle, but periodically there after with NO end date in sight, so, potentially, the rest of you life. They don't say it, but it seems like they're saying "HIPPA be damned, we don't care!"

PROBABLY the reason no Doctors are up in arms (so to speak) over this is that they don't know about it, YET. It's buried kind of deep in the law, and as far as I know, the state has not yet begun to ask for access to those records.

I expect a virulent reaction from the medical community when they DO learn about it, as I expect the first time they will hear about the law is when the state demands the records. They will, of course, (like the rest of us,) feel blindsided, and probably a bit resentful.

I think, depending on the timing of when the state begins demanding medical record access it could be the first part of the law to be challenged in court. Because someone will have "standing", a doctor, not just an ordinary joe.

Consider this possible scenario. State demands Joe Sixpack's medical records, so THEY can determine if he is fit to be allowed to purchase the semiautomatic assault rifle he has applied for permission to purchase.

Doc Brown, refuses, citing patient confidentiality, and privacy laws.
State gets a court to ORDER Doc Brown to supply the records.
Doc Brown's lawyers refuse. (cause he's got some by now...)

State arrests Doc Brown for violating the law and the court order.

headline (in pro gun press anyway)
Doctor arrested for violating gun control law!! No gun involved!!!

Let the courtroom fireworks begin!

and like I've said before, there's still MORE in the law, things that appear to me to violate other Constitutionally enumerated rights.

if it weren't so serious, it would be terribly amusing.

[zxcvbob]

Either way, it really puts the doctor in a bind. He either gets sued by the patient for violating HIPPA, or he gets cuffed and stuffed like that nurse a couple of years ago who refused to draw an illegal blood sample (iirc, the patient was unconscious and so could not give consent, and the police did not have a court order)