The Seattle Times is reporting that three state legislators will introduce legislation banning the sale of "military-style" semi-automatic firearms in Washington State at the start of the session in January.
The bill, not yet submitted, will be called the "Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill", and will prohibit the sale of "military style" semiautomatic weapons in the state, and require current owners to pass background checks.
The legislators, Representatives Kline and Kohl-Welles of Seattle, and Hunter or Medina, cite the murders of Aaron Sullivan, and Officer Timothy Brenton as the need for the bill.
While both murders are tragic, there is no evidence to support the idea that a Washington State version of an "Assault Weapon Ban" would have any effect on crime. A US Department of Justice study on the effect of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban in place from 1994-2004. Studies show that firearms restricted by the ban were only involved in 1-2% of crimes.
No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control. Washington Post editorial September 15, 1994 addressing the Federal Assault Weapon Ban
Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman has addressed the myth that Officer Brenton was killed by a so-called "assault weapon."
The proposed legislation would ban certain firearms based on their cosmetics, identifying so-called "military style" firearms, and standard-capacity magazines.
To evaluate the proposed law, it is important to understand that, from a functional perspective, there is no difference between the AR-15 style rifle and a more traditional semi-automatic rifle. Each fires only one round each time the trigger is pulled. Fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a trigger pull, are already illegal in Washington, and have nothing to do with the crimes.
The Washington State Constitution is pretty clear in its intent about firearms.
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. -- Washington Constitution
It is not logical to assume that the number of rounds that a firearm can carry would alter the intent of the criminal. Maurice Clemmons, the alleged murderer of the Lakewood Police officers, used a revolver to carry out his crime.
Requiring a background check for people who already own these types of firearms has far-reaching effects.
- First, it would establish an unprecedented firearms registration system if Washington, because owners would have to declare that they have the firearms. Legal owners would have to register their firearms based on cosmetics. Criminals, who don't follow laws, won't.
- It ignores the fact that the vast majority of legal owners of the firearms underwent criminal background checks at the time of purchase. Remember, criminals buying stolen guns don't do background checks.
- It would probably violate Washington Constitution's Section 23, which prohibits Ex Post Facto laws. The law places a restriction on an already-completed legal transaction. Criminals, of course, don't follow laws at the time of purchase, and won't follow them after the purchase.
Representative Hunter has said, "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction."
Of course, this argument is specious, and Hunter knows it. Trying to draw an analogy between a civilian firearm to a tank or bazooka is patently absurd.
Representative Kohl-Welles asked, "did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" when addressing the Constitutionality of the proposed ban.
Again, a specious argument, and she knows it.
When writing the First Amendment, the framers didn't anticipate the computer you are reading this on, nor the Internet you used to get it. The framers did not anticipate electronic wiretaps when writing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
The proposed legislation is nothing other than another attempt to restrict the legal activities of law-abiding citizens. If the supporters of the legislation don't know that criminals who shoot police officer don't follow laws, they should wake up.
Agree? Disagree? Leave a COMMENT.
Want to follow the discussion? SUBSCRIBE.
Comments
Every political jurisdiction in this state has an emergency plan. Each plan warns the public that normal government services are likely to be interrupted during a major emergency and therefore advise us to prepare to survive on our own for at least 3 days (no police, fire, ems, etc). Remember...3 Days, 3 Ways? If the police, as our agents--hired to do what we would otherwise have to do for ourselves--are issued semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns as necessary tools to properly perform their duty and to protect themselves, it is reasonable that the public continue to have access to such firearms as part of trying to assure their physical security when there is a void, or even a delay, in police response. Remember the Rodney King riots in LA...and the widespread looting and arson? What I remember most are video of enclaves of Korean businesses who posted family members on the rooftops of their businesses--armed with semi-automatic rifles--and remained unlooted and unburned.
Ralph, you left part of the story out. Those business owners had been told by the police and guard that they were advised to go home, that their businesses were secure. Then after some of the business owners left, THE AUTHORITIES LEFT TOO! You can guess which businesses were looted and which were not.
I'd like to see where tanks are illegal, because frankly, I think you are wrong.
Military vehicle collectors collect armored cars, armored personnel carriers, half-tracks and tanks in many nations, even in those where firearms are more widely restricted than they are here.
I carry a gun because cops are are to heavy.I remeber a story. Where a woman ask a sheriff why he had a pistol at a party.She said "Are you exempting trouble.Sheriff said "No if I was expecting trouble i would have brought my rifle. We need our rifles to protect ourselves and our families.
i would like to go to the big 5 protest please tell me where and when i will bring friends to help support our cause at least as many as i have holsters and slings for
Pls keep in mind that in the other Washington both houses and the white house have been passing legislation and endorsing documents, for at least several hundred days now, that are patently in violation of the US Constitution. The old argument that specious proposals violate the Constitution may soon be meaningless itself.
Most Washington State legislators know that gun control is politically suicidal in this state. Apparently, those three didn't get the memo. It will be time to teach them next November.
When will politicians stop playing to the uninformed? ...but then I have yet to find a politician who even understood past/present "assault weapons" bans. It just sounds good and it creates more government.
Speaking from my experience I do see a couple of problems. My first belief is that if you own a firearm(of any type) that you should practice(for safety and experience) and respect the firearm at all times. YOU are responsible for what happens to that firearm.
The first problem is stated already in this article.
Criminals do not obey laws.( common sense right?) When/If this bill is passes only law-abiding citizens will be affected. (not your local drug dealer, he can buy his).
When they become illegal they will be stolen more. Simple supply and demand. They are now more valuable. That also brings in arms trafficking, wow that's exactly what we want...
I believe you should always have the option to defend yourself. By what ever means YOU choose. Do not give that up. My view of this world is different. I've seen what happens when a firearm is used. Please respect any weapon and always be safe and responsible.
As I suspected after reading this, check out the youtube video on this "great" kid. He looks like and acts like a hoodlum from the intercity. The youtube video shows him and his friend smoking a blunt with rap music spliced into it. Capitol hill, graffiti aka "art" lol, smoking blunts on youtube with rap music in the background. Hmm sounds like a kid who stays out of trouble to me. Here let me turn in my rifles and handguns because some kid who lives in a bad area was shot.
People need to wake up. Criminals will kill with whatever they can get their hands on. Check out your local prisons, they craft weapons using plastics, paper, metal, duct tape, you name it to kill or injure others. Guns, crossbow, bows, bat, knives, bare hands, cars, etc. it doesn't matter. Look at the UK, they have the most crime in all of over Europe and they are a near police state. Guns are outlawed now and there is 1 camera for every 4 persons in the UK on an Island of 62 million people. Stop being sheep.
How is any one able to defend their home with bascically an antique rifle, against a criminal with with and ak or ar. Over 90 million ak's made, and it's not likely I'm gonna hand over mine knowing it's likely I'll be facing one someday. And I'm not willing to risk being unable to defend myself properly because of bad law. How can I defend the constitution if I can't defend myself. More importantly, how can you? WAKE UP AMERICANS!!!
No and that is the last word on the subject. You can not restrict this right. The answer is simply no. Try to take it!
No and that is the last word on the subject. You can not restrict this right. The answer is simply no. Try to take it!
" The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired"
This is our own State Constitution. This is definately impairing our ability to defend. When legistators ignore the supreme law of the land and choose to ignore the fact that this has never helped anywhere it has been enacted, then they are either stupid and/or ignorant or blindly following an agenda. It's amazing how soon they forget that they are public servants.
in a shall issue state, i just cannot see this getting any further then the "proposal" stages. ridiculous.
Representative Hunter has said, "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns..."--If he said that, he just proved how misinformed he is. Collectors own "destructive devices", including tanks and cannons quite legally, and Class III weapons (including machine guns and sub machine guns) are also quite legal to own, even though several states have (quite illegal and unconstitutional) laws banning these weapons. He should take a trip to the Knob Creek machine gun shoot some time. The very idea that "We", he, or anyone else "allows" anyone to own certain weapons, shows his ignorance of guaranteed rights under various states' and the U.S. Constitutions. But, of course, gun banners rarely have any clues about reality. That's why they are gun banners.
And, George, my thanks for another informative, balenced article.
If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words.
I agree 100% with the assessment of the assault weapons ban.
taking guns away will just bring more crime
if every house had a gun in it... would people break into those houses knowing that? or go to the next town that had a ban on firearms?
You have my thanks for writing a concise, well written, well thought-out article. This kind of "feel good" but actually harmful legislation only serves to disharm those who ought to be armed, and empower those who ought not to be but are, unfortunately "undisarmable" - criminals. It also serves to further the errosion of ALL freedoms and liberties.
MOLON LABE
If this passes,and it wont, I will move to Idaho the very next day!
All a ban or talk of a ban like this does is creates anger and further extremism. Adam Kline and his cohorts need to get a clue. They are putting themselves and others around them in harms way by even proposing this type of initiative. But maybee thats what they need some nutjob takes a few of them out and maybee they'll quit attacking our constitutional rights. Naw their not that smart they'd just push it even further. Adam Kline and his cohorts are lucky they dont't have me for a neightbor. I'd take a crap on their front doorsteps and light it on fire!
How about pass legislation that prevents cops from hanging out (in groups) @ starbucks?? I guess that would only make sense and not aid in the new facist regime that has stolen our tax dollars and sent them overseas....now they want to cram a health care plan up our ass? the whole while they dont even ask us if its ok...
The author stated his case beautifully, and I agree with him 100%. His only omission was to fail to note the reformulation of the term "assault weapon" that expands this bill far beyond the scope of previous "assault weapons bans." Specifically, the bill bans all semi-auto rifles that accept a detachable magazine and possess any ONE - as opposed to the usually required two - "prohibited features" (muzzle break, pistol grip, etc). This formulation dramatically increases the number of guns banned, and makes this bill particularly dangerous (few rifles would remain legal). Further, the bill provides for warrantless police searches of citizens' homes and confiscation of existing rifles.
In short, this gun ban bill is disgusting, groundless, and unconstitutional. The senators that sponsored this bill - Adam Kline, Darlene Fairley, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, and Jim McDermott - should be booted out of office immediately, and should be ashamed to show their faces in Washington society.
I agree with the author of this article.
"An armed society is a polite society".
I underwrite the sentiment that gunownership has its responsibilities and that knowledge of the law is part of that responsibility.
I can't stop wondering what would have happened at the Forza Coffee shop in Parkland if an armed responsible citizen would have been there.
The outcome may have been very different.
Our gunlaws here are addequate and precise, please don't try to reinvent this wheel.
Most if not all gun ban bills pertain to one central theme and that is to remove your Constitutional rights. I went through background checks, ATF checks and filled out tons of required paperwork to get a weapon to protect my family since it takes police forever to get here. If they take my guns they will come for my freedom of speech and my religious beliefs then who knows. I was watching a video the other day about a man in England who defended his property one night from known criminals and got 4 years in prison for discharging a weapon. It would have taken 30 minutes for the police to arrive. Imagine for a moment you awake to shattering glass and voices and the in the background you hear your children starting to cry then yell for help.
ABSOLUTELY. I love this article. I own an assault rifle, assault shotgun, and (if this bill were to pass) an Assault pistol (typical -- nothing special about it -- Glock 19).
I think it's ridiculous that they are trying to limit what us LAW ABIDING citizens can and can't buy. I've never shot anyone, much less committed a misdemeanor crime... If I have an interest in guns, why can't I own some? I'm clearly pretty harmless...
Point being, if someone wants to commit a crime that needs a firearm, they will find a way. Nothing can stop them. Only difference is, maybe us law abiding citizens will be able to protect ourselves if the crime committed affects us in an immediate way.
We are way overdue for meaningful gun control and I mean fewer guns in our society. In 2006 there were about 10,000 murders done with a gun in the US. Canada had 190. The difference should tell everyone that something is wrong with our gun loving society and the fact that there are about 97 guns for every 100 people.
Publico:
the problem with what you are stating is that the murders happened with guns. well what the article is talking about is assault rifles, not just guns. Like it states in the article "Studies show that firearms restricted by the ban were only involved in 1-2% of crimes." meaning that the guns they are trying to ban wouldn't make that much of a difference in the amount of murders, because its not the guns that are killing the people its the people killing the people and if they want to break that law and kill people anyway than whats to say that a law saying they cant have guns is really going to stop them anyway?
Publico:
Your facts about how many guns there are to 100 people is greatly exagerated. It is closer 20 to 100 people. So maybe instead of jumping on a banwaggon and writing a bunch of crap when you dont even understand what the hell you are talking about.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!