MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Washington Redefines All Semi-Automatic Rifles As 'Assault Weapons'

A ballot initiative that took effect this week bans sales to adults younger than 21.

Cabela'sCabela'sAs of Tuesday, adults younger than 21 are no longer allowed to buy semi-automatic rifles in Washington, thanks to a ballot initiative approved by 59 percent of that state's voters last November. The initiative, I-1639, officially targets "semiautomatic assault rifles," but its definition of that term is so broad that it renders the assault part superfluous, except for tendentious rhetorical purposes.

The New York Times, for example, describes the firearms restricted by I-639 as "assault weapons" (a term the initiative also uses) and implies that they are similar to the guns banned under that heading in "states like California and Connecticut." While those laws do cover semi-automatic rifles, they do not cover all semi-automatic rifles—only specifically named models or those with disfavored features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors.

I-1639, by contrast, defines a "semiautomatic assault rifle" as "any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge." That category includes not just scary-looking, military-style rifles like the AR-15 but a wide range of firearms commonly used for hunting, target shooting, and competitions. The definition excludes rifles that are "manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action" but includes all the rest.

In addition to the new minimum purchase age, the initiative imposes a 10-day waiting period on buyers of semi-automatic rifles and bans sales to residents of other states; those provisions take effect in July. According to the initiative, the restrictions are supposed to help prevent mass shootings.

Since the Times does not even hint at the broad scope of I-1639, readers may be puzzled by objections to the law. "We will not sit idly by while elitist anti-gun activists attempt to deny everyday Americans their fundamental right to self-defense," says Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement quoted by the Times. But if 18-to-20-year-olds are denied the right to purchase "semiautomatic assault rifles," can't they still purchase ordinary semi-automatic rifles?

Well, no, they can't, but readers won't understand that point unless they are familiar with I-1639's sweeping definition of "semiautomatic assault rifle." Since the minimum purchase age for handguns in Washington was already 21, the only remaining options for younger adults are shotguns or "bolt, pump, lever, or slide action" rifles. That situation makes the NRA's concern about the "fundamental right to self-defense" easier to understand. The NRA is one of the plaintiffs in a post-election lawsuit that claims I-1639's age restriction on rifle purchases "impermissibly burdens the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment" and is "significantly broader than necessary to serve any possible alleged governmental interest."

WikipediaWikipediaThe response from the initiative's supporters is telling. "The gun lobby is trying to thwart the will of nearly 60 percent of Washingtonian voters who supported common-sense gun reform in our state," Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told the Times. But the Second Amendment is supposed to thwart the will of the majority; that is the whole point of constitutional guarantees. The NRA may or may not be right that I-1639 violates the Second Amendment. But the fact that most Washington voters thought the initiative was a good idea has no bearing on that issue.

Linda Greenhouse, who covered the Supreme Court for the Times from 1978 until 2008, also does not like the idea that the Constitution might trump her policy preferences. In an op-ed piece published today, she pooh-poohs the "outlandish" notion that federal courts are treating the Second Amendment as a "second-class right," saying that concern is a right-wing fantasy dreamed up by Justice Clarence Thomas and echoed by likeminded extremists. Then Greenhouse proves Thomas' point by complaining that "the Supreme Court's appetite for expanding the Second Amendment, if such an appetite develops, will be wildly out of sync with the mood of the country." If the Court overturns popular policies just because they violate the Constitution, she says, it will "accelerate the collapse of public confidence in the one organ of government that at the moment seems to stand between us and disaster."

The Court's ability to "stand between us and disaster," of course, depends on its determination to uphold the Constitution regardless of politics or public opinion. Yet Greenhouse wants the justices to consider the latest polling data before deciding how to apply the Second Amendment. It seems unlikely that she would take that position in connection with any other constitutional right.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I feel bad for the people in Washington who are dominated by King County politics.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Some sort of electoral college at the state level might be in order.

  • Bob Meyer||

    It wouldn't matter. The Microsoft-Google-Amazon axis gets whatever they want. No one dared have a Trump or Romney bumper sticker for fear of having their cars "keyed" in the company parking lots.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Their ranks really need to be thinned.

  • LiborCon||

    I feel bad for the people in Illinois who are dominated by Cook County politics.

    I'm one of them.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yet Greenhouse wants the justices to consider the latest polling data before deciding how to apply the Second Amendment. It seems unlikely that she would take that position in connection with any other constitutional right.

    No. She probably would.

  • JesseAz||

    Nope. Majorities in polling for both third trimester abortion regulations and a majority support for voter ID.

  • Sevo||

    "Yet Greenhouse wants the justices to consider the latest polling data before deciding how to apply the Second Amendment. It seems unlikely that she would take that position in connection with any other constitutional right."

    We already have a method to incorporate 'sentiment' into the Constitution; propose and amendment and get it passed. Or STFU.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do18-year-olds still have the right to free speech in Washington, or have they raised the age limit on First Amendment rights, too?

  • Bob Meyer||

    They have no right of free speech on any state college campus but it isn't age related. Bret Weinstein was forced to leave Evergreen State College because he refused to go along with a "No White People" Day.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Bret Weinstein is also a gigantic pussy, or he might have been able to hold onto his job.

  • Shandower||

    Nobody has the right to free speech in Washington. Especially in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    If the Court overturns popular policies just because they violate the Constitution, she says, it will "accelerate the collapse of public confidence in the one organ of government that at the moment seems to stand between us and disaster."

    Agh! The Stupid, it burns!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "the Supreme Court's appetite for expanding the Second Amendment, if such an appetite develops, will be wildly out of sync with the mood of the country."

    Is she talking about the same country that just elected Donald Trump?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    By the "mood of the country", she means the Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area. And she can't understand how Trump won, because she doesn't know anyone who voted for Trump.

  • Bob Meyer||

    I never saw a single Trump bumper sticker in Seattle, not one, not ever.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I did. It was on a pickup truck and the driver looked lost.

  • Bob Meyer||

    I often feel lost when I'm in Seattle. I saw very few Trump bumper stickers even in Monroe, WA which is a far more civilized place than Seattle. No one in Monroe will key your car for having a politically incorrect bumper sticker.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Oh, and I did see one hand-made Trump sign in a yard. 1 block south of Roxbury in what Seattle calls a lower-income diverse neighborhood of immigrants and minorities.

  • vek||

    I've seen two I think, both were almost certainly out of towners visiting. I hope their vehicles weren't vandalized while here.

    That said, I HAVE found out a number of people voted for him in talking to them! IIRC around 20%+ of people in Seattle voted for him. This is lower than just a few years ago, when Seattle was 30% R in most state/federal elections. The problem is that 20 something percent is too terrified to ever mention it out loud.

  • Ed in North Texas||

    As Greenhouse worked full time until 2008 (and still writes part time) for the NY Times, I suspect her area of experience is NY City, particularly Manhattan's Upper West Side.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    This sounds like the perfect time to invent a double-action revolver rifle with a 30-round cylinder.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Or a plasma rifle, in the forty watt range. Which according to 'The Terminator' should already be a reality by now.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    And gets around the semi-auto restriction. Of course, I would assume a plasma rifle in the 40-watt range to be full auto.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Depends on the recharge rate I suppose. I can hear Pelosi screaming "no one needs a cycle time between plasma bursts of less than three seconds!"

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    A pistol version of the hand cranked Gatling gun (except belt fed, so no magazine size issues. :)

  • ||

    A pistol version of the hand cranked Gatling gun (except belt fed, so no magazine size issues. :)

    This is already regulated at the Federal level as a machine gun. UA, specifically says double-action to connote that the round's energy doesn't cycle the action and every shot gets one pull of the trigger.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "This is already regulated at the Federal level as a machine gun."

    No, it its not.

    ATF Rule 2004-5


    ATF and its predecessor agency, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), have historically held that the original, crank-operated Gatling Gun, and replicas thereof, are not automatic firearms or machineguns as defined. See Rev. Rul. 55-528, 1955-2 C.B. 482. The original Gatling Gun is a rapid-firing, hand-operated weapon. The rate of fire is regulated by the rapidity of the hand-cranking movement, manually controlled by the operator. It is not a "machinegun" as that term is defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b} because it is not a weapon that fires automatically.
  • ||

    You're right. I guess I was approaching it from a different frame of mind. There are a number of guns available today that "aren't firearms" simply because they aren't fired from the shoulder a newly designed handheld crank rifle needing to meet similar criteria. Every demonstration of this I'd seen was 'from the hip' and I assumed similar. Never occurred to me that it was completely legal to fire from the shoulder and just easier to crank with the stock wedged in your armpit.

  • ||

    You're right. I guess I was approaching it from a different frame of mind.

    As in Gatling, Puckle, harmonica, etc. guns are all hundred-year-old technology. I could see why, maybe, Remington, Bushmaster, or S&W wouldn't have such an edgy and potentially un-patentable weapon in their catalog, but why a company like Kelt-Tec or Chiappa wouldn't gamble on such an idea? I can only assume because you'd need to apply for an FFL to manufacture/sell and the modern guns, being man portable, shoulder fired, with modern cartridges would inevitably be Title IIed to death in the cradle. I freely admit to never having been a commercial manufacturer and, as such, ignorant but, IMO, am reasoning deductively rather than inductively.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    There are custom gunsmiths and hobbyists that have built hand cranked Gatling guns in modern cartridges. I've seen one in .22LR and I've seen Franken guns that rigged 6-8 AR15s in 5.56 NATO into a hand cranked Gatling like rig that manually fires one of the rifles at a time as it rotates into the firing position.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Most of the .22LR Gatling guns that have been built were done as working scale models. The original Gatling was IIRC .78

  • Ed in North Texas||

    The original Model 1862 from Dr. Gatling was in the then US Army standard .58 caliber percussion paper cartridges loaded in steel cylinders to feed the barrels. The Model was adjusted to use the new .58 Rimfire cartridge as that cartridge became available.

    The improved Model 1865 was originally made in the .58 Rimfire caliber, but in 1866 the US Army ordered 45 in the new .50-70 cartridge and 61 in a 1 inch cartridge.

    Gatling's much improved Model 1874 was produced for the US in .45-70 and various other countries ordered it in their issue cartridge (e.g. .577-450 for Britain).

    The Model 1895 was produced for the US in .30 Army (.30-40). Lt. John Parker commanded a four gun Detachment in Cuba during the Spanish American War. He wrote a book about his experience, History of the Gatling Gun Detachment, Fifth Army Corps, at Santiago which is available on Amazon and also in free digital format at Project Gutenberg. Somewhat improved Model 1900 was later converted to .30-03 and then .30-06.

    The final chapter of Dr. Gatling's invention was their test use, driven by electric motors to rounds per minute speeds never thought possible, in developing the 20mm aircraft cannon (M-61 Vulcan) and the 7.62x51mm "Minigun", and eventually resulting in the 30mm GAU-8 in current use.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Demand for things like this is extremely limited, due to the insane cost of operating it for more than a few seconds. That, more than the NFA and Hughes amendments restrict the ownership of machine guns: They're just absurdly expensive to keep fed.

    You'd probably see considerable demand for firearms with a three shot "burst mode" if not for those federal laws, though, as that has self-defense utility.

  • Ed in North Texas||

    With the Hughes Amendment NFA machine guns are insanely expensive due to non-government sales being restricted to those weapons/receivers registered as of the effective date of the Hughes Amendment (1986). Example a nephew bought a MAC 10 before Hughes for $700.00. If he were to try and buy the same subgun today there's one advertised @ $7,995.00. I knew a guy who bought a new H&K MP5A3 @ $3,000.00 before Hughes. Today there's one for sale, somewhat reworked (upgraded trigger pack, Surefire Light), @ $41,995.00. The Hughes Amendment cost is usually a greater issue than the cost of ammo until you get to the M2HB eating .50 BMG ammo. .30-06 Military Surplus .30 M2 Ball is currently selling for $289 for 400 rounds, steel cased Comblock 500 for about $270.00. .30-06 isn't all that bad if you reload, but the .50 just isn't inexpensive for the average person (e.g. 100 rounds, remanufactured, linked @ $258.72 - $2.5872 per round). Even reloading isn't inexpensive.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Every demonstration of this I'd seen was 'from the hip' and I assumed similar."

    While that hand cranked AR allows rapid fire without legally being a machine gun, being a single barrel weapon it's not a proper Gatling gun.

  • Don't look at me!||

    They always forget Kennedy was shot with a bolt action rifle.

  • ||

    Three times no less!

  • Cloudbuster||

    It was an assault bolt action rifle.

  • Tionico||

    three DIFFERENT bolt action rifles.
    And if memory serves aright, so was Reagan. And Martin Luther King.

  • Ed in North Texas||

    Regan was shot with a .22 handgun.

  • A Lady of Reason||

    The Left is naive about how we need to defend ourselves and our country!
    https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/

  • Bob Meyer||

    Washington has gone Full California in Progressive mania. The proposition (1639 not I-639) violated several provisions of the law about how propositions must be written. The first court denied the attempt to put it on the ballot on these grounds but the WA Supreme Court overruled the judge. This is standard operating procedure for the WA SC - approve all progressive initiatives and deny all anti-progressive initiatives. The state is utterly corrupt. It makes New Jersey look honest by comparison.

    A tax cut approved by the voters was ruled invalid because it would limit the amount of money available for education purposes and education is, according to the WA constitution, the number one priority of the state. Under WA law, any citizen initiative can be removed by the legislature after two years. The initiative that the SC invalidated had been passed three times in three separate elections and was operating for four years before the court devised a way to kill it.

  • Mongo||

    The law is anti-semi-tic.

  • tpaine||

    I like what you did there

  • Dillinger||

    >>> If the Court overturns popular policies just because they violate the Constitution, she says ...

    nothing this person says after should have been repeated.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Nothing she said before or during should have been repeated either. Stupid to the tenth power!

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Authoritatians will equivocate to their favor when describing the things they want to control. Leftists change the meaning of 'assault weapon' to include every semiauto rifle including vermin-killers like .22LR. Anti-immigrant assholes redefine 'border security' to mean 'wall'.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're back! And with more of your tired one note bullshit.

    That's too bad.

  • Tionico||

    Clean your glasses.... seems to me he wrote at least two notes of his bull exhaust.

    But YOU only wrote one.....
    the man does make two valid points..... you make none.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I make valid points all the time. He doesn't. He nor am I an ignoramus that favors open borders.

  • Bob Meyer||

    The next move will be to define all guns as "atomic weapons" since they are made of atoms. Then the progressives will ban all firearms.

  • Rich||

    Stop giving them ideas!

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No, first ban atomic weapons, THEN define all firearms as "atomic weapons".

  • Bob Meyer||

    I think that they'd rather define them first so that they can scare the idiots by telling them that there are 300 million "atomic weapons" in the hands of extremists.

  • Rich||

    the fact that most Washington voters thought the initiative was a good idea has no bearing on that issue.

    "Common-sense" legislation, indeed.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Washington state also now has a 10 round magazine capacity bills in the house and senate. They were filed AT THE REQUEST of the attorney general's office. Previously I had thought the AG did stuff like prosecute violators of consumer protection laws, and other law enforcement stuff. Not partisan politics. I guess I was wrong.

    When I moved to Washington in 2008 it seemed the right kind of purple balance that suited me. Socially liberal, OK to be a go getter, overall respect for 2A rights. Washington and Oregon both have turned really hard to the left. Democrat voters have become extremely intolerant of anyone not falling in line. It scares the shit out of me. What's more, I've tried to explain the growing intolerance to some fairly open minded Democrat friends I have and they totally can't it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    WA AG Bob Ferguson is a Marxist political activist. He unilaterally chose to sue Arlene's flowers after he learned of the incident. He was not contacted by the homo couple.

    Bob Ferguson is a very evil man. A totalitarian slaver.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Washington was moving heavily Lefty over 10 years ago.

    When Californians were fleeing the economic disaster in Commifornia in 2008, many fled to WA, OR, NV, AZ, and CO.

    Notice how those states are fucked up now?

  • Idaho Bob||

    We are getting our share of Californians in ID, but it seems most are looking for sanctuary, not trying to create a mini-Cali. Your mileage may vary.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    We are getting our share of Californians in ID, but it seems most are looking for sanctuary, not trying to create a mini-Cali.

    Boise is where the progressive tumor is located.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Burt Rutan, the designer of SpaceShipOne and many other aircraft retired and moved from Mojave to Coeur d'Alene. He is no progressive. I'm sure he didn't move there to make more like CA.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Notice how those states are fucked up now?"

    They've even taken over the Spokane city council. Not a coincidence, the homeless are being imported in droves. Among other batshit stupid mistakes.

  • Qsl||

    I had compared notes with a looong-time resident of the region about the land of lumberjacks and shake rats, and it has indeed turned into a shitshow.

    Blame the unnatural focus on the region in the 90s, the overflow from tech, or the refugees from CA; it resembles less the Emerald States than another Detroit in the making.

    Goodbye the West I loved.

  • Bob Meyer||

    WA is slowly becoming a one party state like California. I used to be a Republican PCO (to support Ron Paul in 2012) and I can state categorically, the WA Republican Party can't do anything right (in both senses).

    They lost every state wide election in 2016. They won't defend the 2nd Amendment. They won't sue over a payroll tax that is a thinly disguised income tax despite the fact that the WA constitution explicitly bans an income tax.

    It probably wouldn't matter if they did sue because the WA Supreme Court is farther to the left than the AG. They would argue that wages aren't income for purposes of state taxation.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    One upside to this initiative (and AWB ban and magazine restrictions bills pre-filed at Ferguson's request) is I am now thinking about getting involved with the Washington state GOP. I have no idea if I can help, and disagree with Team Red on many things, but I'm feeling pretty ready to embrace the lesser of two evils.

  • Tionico||

    AtG Ferguson needs to have an action filed against him for failing to uphold his oath of office, a feloy level perjury charge. He has been WAY out there for far too long. He seems to tnink he's some sort of dictator.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    A couple of years ago, one of those foppish mags [either "GQ" or "Esquire"] published a list of the 10 most dangerous guns in America. Heading that list was the venerable Ruger 10/22.

    Has probably killed more rats than Decon.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I never killed no rats. They all accidentally shot themselves in the head all on their own.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Are you thinking of the 2014 Rolling Stone article "The Five most Dangerous Guns in America"? Their list was, and I'm not making this up, "Pistols", "revolvers", "rifles", "shotguns", and "derringers".

  • Rat on a train||

    Can I still buy a muzzle loading assault rifle.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Most gun controllers will tell you that a single shot, muzzle loading flintlock falls perfectly within the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Maybe not in New Jersey though.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Muzzle loaders are legal in NJ. Breech-loading black powder is not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No more than 10 slugs in your leather pouch buddy!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    And no bayonet lug on that Brown Bess!

  • Longtobefree||

    With what it weighs, who needs a bayonet?

  • Ed in North Texas||

    Socket Bayonet locks over the front sight, no lug needed.

  • UVaGrad||

    The NRA spent about $5 trying to fight this at the ballot box, and now they're scrambling after it passed. Why anyone bothers to give them money to support gun rights is beyond me.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Your preferences for supporting gun rights are...?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    A Molon Labe sticker on the back of a Subaru. That'll at least confuse the hell out of people.

  • Dillinger||

    they'll think Molon Labe is a girl-sex thing.

  • Qsl||

    Well, have you seen the size of some of those marital aids? Could certainly pass as a weapon.

    We need common sense dildo reform

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Not in WA, where Subarus are for than lesbians.

  • Anomalous||

    they'll think Molon Labe is a girl-sex thing.

    Molon labia!

  • ErictheRed||

    Winner

  • Cavadus||

    Gun Owners of America is a far superior organization.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    They are certainly not of a mind for compromise, or any restriction on 2A, and have often criticized the NRA for failing in this regard. I am not sure that is realistic but for many it reflects what they believe. Regardless all gun owners should all support an organization be it NRA, GOA, NAGR, SAF, et al; otherwise we will have no rights at all [I belong to more than one of these].

  • MikeP2||

    The NRA is a national organization. They don't, in general, fight state initiatives all that much, because that is not where the fight truly is.

    Regardless of the propaganda you learned at UVa, the NRA is a quite small lobbying organization and their influence is not all-encompassing.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    ^This. For state level laws it's the state level orgs that do the heavy lifting (like the Virginia Citizens Defense League in Virginia).

  • Ed in North Texas||

    Why I'm a life member of the Texas State Rifle Association and, just to help out friends in the far northern rural area of the state, a Senior Member of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. The latter may be as much of a waste of money as whatever WA state organization is, but it is my money to waste. In NY the City runs the show and in WA King County (Seattle) runs the state.

    Add NRA, JPFO and SAF to the mix. I'd go for GOA, but they seem to spend too much time dinging the NRA in an effort to convince people to join the GOA. It would be better to show their accomplishments than pointing out what they believe NRA hasn't done.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    NRA is full of subversives sabotaging complete and total elimination of gun control bans.

    You cannot give the Lefties an inch anymore. They already ran with every compromise about gun limits ever given them.

    Every gun control law is unconstitutional because of the protections of the 2nd Amendment.

  • ||

    The NRA spent about $5 trying to fight this at the ballot box

    How much should the NRA spend trying to fight this at the ballot box? You know membership lets you lobby the leadership directly and life or 5 consecutive years of membership gets you a vote with regard to the directorship, right?

    I'm not up on the local politics, but if you gave me $10M in cash and said I had to eat it or spend it on an election in WA State, I'd choose to eat it.

  • Tionico||

    I don't any more.. and they quit calling me to re-up when I took some of the antigun bills they did nothing to obtruct and told the poor sap on the phone I cannot support an outfit that leaves us in the lurch when our rights are threatened.... as they have been fr too much of late.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Definitely violations of the "in common use" fork of the Heller/McDonald rulings, but even if the Court takes it up, they might give it a pass on the basis that 18 year olds aren't really adults.

  • Longtobefree||

    Bullshit.
    They are old enough to 'choose' to end a life in an abortion clinic.
    They are old enough to buy a weapon to defend a life on the streets.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Of course it's bullshit. That doesn't mean the Court wouldn't do it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gonna be A LOT of rifles sales for Washington residents in Idaho.

  • Idaho Bob||

    All WA sales must go through an FFL. I can sell a gun to a WA resident, but the WA resident committed a felony.

  • ||

    I can sell a gun to a WA resident, but the WA resident committed a felony.

    From a dealer/manufacturer in Idaho, sure. Otherwise, you gonna keep the receipts showing you participated in a felony? In IL, it arguably makes you a straw purchaser.

  • Tionico||

    better not stick yer schnozz onto the weatern side of the border once you do.. because both buyer and seller become "felons' by their fantasy enacted into law.

    By the bye, a "straw purchase" by defintion is a sale to a prohibited person, deberred the use of arms under the law for whatever reason. selling a gun to someone NOT a prohibited person (felon, domestic violator, etc) is NOT a "straw pruchase". May be prohibited by Bloomburg, er, sqeeze me, I meant Wasington law, but not federal.

  • Ed in North Texas||

    A straw purchase is a firearm sold to a person legally able to purchase said firearm and the legal person (straw buyer) intends to buy the firearm for a prohibited person, and falsely states on the Form 4473 that the purchase is for him/herself.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Or PVC tubing and post diggers.

  • Cloudbuster||

    I believe the term is "molon labe."

  • Hendrik||

    There's way more to this than Sullam indicates:

    A) No pistol purchases unless you have a concealed weapons permit.

    ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS. RCW 9.41.090 and 2018 c
    201 s 6003 are each amended to read as follows:
    (1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no
    dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
    (a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and
    the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and
    issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed
    as provided in subsection (((5))) (6) of this section. For purposes
    of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does
    not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any
    license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency
    conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW
    9.41.070 at the time of issuance;

  • Hendrik||

    (b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police
    or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides
    4
    that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW
    9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the
    chief of police or sheriff; or (ii) the state that the purchaser is
    eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040, as provided in
    subsection (3)(b) of this section; or
    (c) The requirements or time periods in RCW 9.41.092 have been
    satisfied.

  • Hendrik||

    B) No purchase of semi-automatic without all this bullshit, and even then they can delay 30 days for no reason

    (2) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no
    dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaser
    thereof until:
    (a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a
    recognized firearm safety training program within the last five
    years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
    (i) Basic firearms safety rules;
    (ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and
    talking to children about gun safety;
    (iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;
    (iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
    (v) Safe handling of firearms; and
    (vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited
    firearms transfers.

  • Hendrik||

    The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, or
    municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a
    nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms
    training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified
    by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers
    firearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of a
    certification that states under the penalty of perjury the training
    included the minimum requirements; and (b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police
    or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides
    that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under
    RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the
    chief of police or sheriff; or (ii) the state that the purchaser is
    5
    eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040, as provided in
    subsection (3)(b) of this section; or
    (c) The requirements or time periods in RCW 9.41.092 have been
    satisfied.

  • Hendrik||

    (3)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, in
    determining whether the purchaser meets the requirements of RCW
    9.41.040, the chief of police or sheriff, or the designee of either,
    shall check with the national crime information center, including
    the national instant criminal background check system, provided for
    by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 et
    seq.), the Washington state patrol electronic database, the health
    care authority electronic database, and with other agencies or
    resources as appropriate, to determine whether the applicant is
    ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.
    (b) The state, through the legislature or initiative process,
    may enact a statewide firearms background check system equivalent
    to, or more comprehensive than, the check required by (a) of this
    subsection to determine that a purchaser is eligible to possess a
    firearm under RCW 9.41.040. Once ((the)) a state system is
    established, a dealer shall use the state system and national
    instant criminal background check system, provided for by the Brady
    Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 et seq.), to
    make criminal background checks of applicants to purchase firearms.
    ((However, a chief of police or sheriff, or a designee of either,
    shall continue to check the health care authority's electronic
    database and with other agencies or resources as appropriate, to
    determine whether applicants are ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to
    possess a firearm.))

  • Hendrik||

    (((3))) (4) In any case under this section where the applicant
    has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest from any court of
    competent jurisdiction for a felony or misdemeanor, the dealer shall
    hold the delivery of the pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle until
    the warrant for arrest is served and satisfied by appropriate court
    appearance. The local jurisdiction for purposes of the sale, or the
    6
    state pursuant to subsection (3)(b) of this section, shall confirm
    the existence of outstanding warrants within seventy-two hours after
    notification of the application to purchase a pistol or
    semiautomatic assault rifle is received. The local jurisdiction
    shall also immediately confirm the satisfaction of the warrant on
    request of the dealer so that the hold may be released if the
    warrant was for an offense other than an offense making a person
    ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a ((pistol)) firearm.

  • Hendrik||

    (((4))) (5) In any case where the chief or sheriff of the local
    jurisdiction, or the state pursuant to subsection (3)(b) of this
    section, has reasonable grounds based on the following
    circumstances: (a) Open criminal charges, (b) pending criminal
    proceedings, (c) pending commitment proceedings, (d) an outstanding
    warrant for an offense making a person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040
    to possess a ((pistol)) firearm, or (e) an arrest for an offense
    making a person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a
    ((pistol)) firearm, if the records of disposition have not yet been
    reported or entered sufficiently to determine eligibility to
    purchase a ((pistol)) firearm, the local jurisdiction or the state
    may hold the sale and delivery of the pistol or semiautomatic
    assault rifle up to thirty days in order to confirm existing records
    in this state or elsewhere. After thirty days, the hold will be
    lifted unless an extension of the thirty days is approved by a local
    district court, superior court, or municipal court for good cause
    shown. A dealer shall be notified of each hold placed on the sale by
    local law enforcement or the state and of any application to the
    court for additional hold period to confirm records or confirm the
    identity of the applicant.

  • Hendrik||

    C) Someone steals your gun you may be guilty of a crime - good luck having to prove your gun was "secure"

    (1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where
    the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited
    person may gain access to the firearm:
    (a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of
    a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access
    and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death
    with the firearm; or
    (b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of
    a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access
    and possession of the firearm and:
    (i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
    (ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public
    place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate
    another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
    (iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
    (2)(a) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm
    in the first degree is a class C felony punishable according to
    chapter 9A.20 RCW.
    (b) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in
    the second degree is a gross misdemeanor punishable according to
    chapter 9A.20 RCW.

  • Hendrik||

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
    11
    (a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a
    trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the
    unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
    (b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the
    basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful
    permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and
    supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
    (c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges,
    the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
    (d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained
    as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized
    access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law
    enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized
    access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of
    the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the
    firearm had been taken.
    (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an
    alleged violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, the
    prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though
    technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations
    where prosecution would serve no public purpose or would defeat the
    purpose of the law in question.

  • Hendrik||

    (5) For the purposes of this section, "prohibited person" means
    a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or
    federal law.
    (6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must
    be stored.

  • Hendrik||

    D) and best of all, in a clear violation of HIPA, you no give government snoops access to your health records, for life, without warning or a warrant

    Sec. 7. RCW 9.41.094 and 2018 c 201 s 6004 are each amended to
    read as follows:
    A signed application to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic
    assault rifle shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and
    written request that the health care authority, mental health
    institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an
    inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to
    the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic
    assault rifle to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.
    13
    Sec. 8. RCW 9.41.097 and 2018 c 201 s 6005 are each amended to
    read as follows:
    (1) The health care authority, mental health institutions, and
    other health care facilities shall, upon request of a court, ((or))
    law enforcement agency, or the state, supply such relevant
    information as is necessary to determine the eligibility of a person
    to possess a ((pistol)) firearm or to be issued a concealed pistol
    license under RCW 9.41.070 or to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic
    assault rifle under RCW 9.41.090.

  • Hendrik||

    (2) Mental health information received by: (a) The department of
    licensing pursuant to RCW 9.41.047 or 9.41.173; (b) an issuing
    authority pursuant to RCW 9.41.047 or 9.41.070; (c) a chief of
    police or sheriff pursuant to RCW 9.41.090 or 9.41.173; (d) a court
    or law enforcement agency pursuant to subsection (1) of this
    section; or (e) the state pursuant to RCW 9.41.090, shall not be
    disclosed except as provided in RCW 42.56.240(4).

  • Bob Meyer||

    So you go to a doctor and casually mention that you're feeling a little depressed because your dog died. The doctor, anxious to push the latest anti-depressant, writes in his records "Clinical Depression is a distinct possibility, attempted to prescribe "Upsadaisium " but patient declined prescription". No gun for you, you're depressed and in denial.

  • Alan@.4||

    Anyone have any ideas regarding the following? How come it seems that "liberal states" seem to fall all over themselves restricting individual rights? Anyone with any thoughts on the above question, feel free to respond.

  • Jerry B.||

    I'd posit that it's because liberals know what's best for you and have your best interests at heart, and if you're foolish enough to resist their efforts to make your life conform with their concept of better, safer, and more socially responsible, they'll sadly punish you until you conform.

  • mpercy||

    Because they're so much better than the rest of us, and their ideas are so good they must be mandatory.

  • Naaman Brown||

    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
    - C.S. Lewis

  • Hank Phillips||

    Huh. Does Jacob have any idea how they redefine "infringed"?

  • 2VNews||

    They are really pushing for a revolution.

  • Tionico||

    quote: "But the fact that most Washington voters thought the initiative was a good idea has no bearing on that issue."

    No? Maybe that's because sixty percent of the voters COULD NOT READ THE BILL when either signing the petition for the Initiative, and/or COULD NOT READ THE BILL in the voter's pamphlet. I read that thing before I voted, and it did NOTn tell me that the three Ruger 10/22 rifles I own will become "semiautomatic assault weapons" by the stroke of someone's pen. So will the Marlin and Mossburg .22 calibre rifles I also own...... Funny thing, I've never owned an "assault rifle" before, never had any interest in one... but by this magickal collection of fly-dung on a piece of parchment, and a lying campaign to fool the lazy voters with emotion, I now own maybe half a dozen of the things... and never spent a penny. Hey, maybe I should bring them into some other state and sell these new "assault weapons" I now own.....

    That was a THIRTY PAGE bill.... the full text was not, as required by WA Constitution, printed on the signature sheets. Thus NO ONE was able to read the entire bill before either signing the petition to place it on the ballot, or voting for it. Just like the faux health scare bill from the kinyun, "we have to pass the bill so we can know what's in it".
    Solly Chollie, that don't cut it.

  • Tionico||

    The other SERIOUS issue with this bill is this: the Washington STate COnstitution provides that any Citizens' Intitiative to be placed on the ballot may ONLY deal, or treat, with ONE SINGLE ISSUE. No confusing or overloading the voters. Straight and sort.. ONE ISSUE PER INITIATIVE. That's the LAW in Washington.

    Yet this bill changes the minimum age to purchase, enacts a new tax, a ten day holding period, requires a new registration system that does not exist for long guns, totally redefines the term "assault weapon" as no other jurisdictioin on the planet does, effectiely closes down gun shows (a ten day waiting period means no one can buy and take home.... gun shows are not fixed places of business, no secure storage place as mandated by FFL rules for firearms enduring a waiting period.
    The bill also requires background checks on certain classes of sales previously exempt background check. That is a list of at least SIX different matters in a "one matter" bill
    That alone should have prevented it even showing up on the ballot Oregon got the same bill, but their Supreme Court were intelligent and faithful enough to strike it from the ballot in Oregon.
    WA State Supreme Court were not.. they allowed it to stand.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    But...but...guns are just one single issue.

    /sarc.

  • Rob Misek||

    This is the new fascist strategy.

    If you want to make laws that contradict common sense, don't address the issue, that will never work.

    Change the definitions that give meaning to everything and existing laws are changed without the hassle of debating the issue.

    Our definitions need to be protected from fascists.

  • ranrod||

    voting on gun rights?
    Gun Control/restrictions, etc are UnConstitutional and such enumerated, recognized and protected Rights are NOT subject to popular vote by The people. The States are asking the People to vote their own rights away!!!!

  • ranrod||

    If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    "Hey, surprise! That assault weapon ban you voted for prohibits a lot more guns than you thought when you voted for it. Thanks, suckers!"

  • Rob Misek||

    +1

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Not a bug, but a feature.

  • Olderthandirt-stillkickin||

    That's easy. Lets just redefine Linda Greenhouse and her lemmings a danger to themselves and others, limiting her to a conservatively safe number of words per day.....
    .

  • vek||

    This state has fallen apart so fast it is mind boggling. 19 or so years ago when my family moved here it was pretty damn great. It had a healthy streak of all the stuff that made old school liberals good, but was great on taxes, gun rights, regulations, etc. It remained pretty damn good until, I dunno... Maybe 2010, or even a couple years after that. Then in the last several years we have passed 30 or 40 years worth of horrible California/NY style laws. It's nuts. And sad. I hate that I am going to have to move out of here soon, as I do like the area, and have lived here most of my life at this point.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Step 1: Give something a bad name
    Step 2: wait a couple of years and brainwash through more advertising (paid for by said taxpayers to brainwash them)
    Step 3: Ban the guns
    Step 4: Return to step 1 except this time it's just "any gun", declare it an assault weapon, continue until all guns are taken and only the military and militant police have guns.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is what's happening Washington. It is classic Joseph Goebbels. It completely turned Germans against the Jews, and it can be used to turn the populace against guns so that they will rely on the government completely.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online