Hope this isn’t too long. For those who still think the second amendment can protect you.
https://www.sportsmans.com/washington-initiative-1639
https://www.sportsmans.com/washington-initiative-1639
Edited: Washington’s Ballot Initiative 1639 has passed. What now?
- Thread starter rickyrick
- Start date
Signing this legally binding document is certifying that the intended AR15 purchase is an Assault Rifle. As I already know it is NOT, I am signing under penalty of perjury to a lie. I see no way to do this and be correct. THAT is what needs attention. NOT the "title". Giving up such great amounts of personal privacy AND paying for the privileged is in itself a travesty under such falsehoods. This is not semantics. This is a legal document with far reaching potential.
No, it is not to punish law abiding, it is to protect the poor, downtrodden folks. Since they had no choice but to commit violent criminal acts. See the chief even said so!
https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesma...t-acts-blames-society-DrD-78hHT0Wwf7vDMKFXGg/
https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesma...t-acts-blames-society-DrD-78hHT0Wwf7vDMKFXGg/
Not exactly.
Your definition does not matter to the state of WA. My definition does not matter, the standard definition, in use since 1944, (created by Adolph Hitler) DOES NOT MATTER.
Because I-1639 contains its OWN definition of reality. Section 16, subpart (25) states
"Semiautomatic assault rifle" means 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.
"Semiautomatic assault rifle" does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.
(underline in original text)
Read this again...it defines ALL semiauto rifles as "Semitautomatic assault rifles".
ALL OF THEM are now, under this law "Semiautomatic Assault Rifles". ALL OF THEM!!!
There is no exception for .22 rimfires. There is no exemption for tube magazines, there is no exception for fixed magazines. ALL SEMI AUTO RIFLES ARE NOW "SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES" under WA LAW!!!!!
Everything from a Marlin model 60 and Ruger 10/22 through M1 carbine, and M1 Garand are now assault rifles. Remington 14s and 141, all 740 series, and Winchester 100s are now all "assault rifles". ALL ARs and AK, SKS, are assault rifles under this law. These and all the others I didn't mention are now semiautomatic assault rifles. EVERY SEMI AUTO RIFLE is now an assault rifle, under this law.
Are we clear on that? What you or I or the entire shooting community's standard for over 70 years DOES NOT MATTER any more. The LAW has defined semiautomatic assault rifle, and EVERYTHING semiauto that isn't a pistol or shotgun is covered. No matter what caliber or design.
SO, even though you "know" the AR 15 isn't an assault rifle, in WA state, after July 1 2019, it legally IS a Semiautomatic assault rifle.
Therefore, in the eyes of the state, signing a legal document stating that the AR 15 is what the state says it is, isn't perjury.
Its not the truth, as we know it, but it isn't legally perjury, under the 1639 definition.
Welcome to the downside of democracy.
and, oh yeah, forget getting your teenage kid a semi auto 22, they can't legally have (possess) one, until they turn 18. 18-21 year olds may legally possess a semitautomatic assault rifle, in certain limited circumstances, listed in the law. They cannot purchase one at all, if under 21.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Not to divert but the top of the NRA-ILA is functionally non-existant now as Cox is suspended and attacked by LaP.
The terminology is not an important issue anymore, that horse has left the barn. Gun aficionados can demand linguistic purity to no avail. The clarification about semi vs. full is now well known. The use of MSSA is common now as gun opponents have taken the critique to heart as is the usage above.
As the great sage, Hillary Clinton said: What difference does it make?
Here are some headlines after a nut with an AR-10 goes berserk :
1. Madman with assault rifle massacres 20
2. Madman with Modern Sporting Rifle massacres 20
3 Madman with an AR-10 massacres 20
4. Madman with a Military Style Semi Auto rifle massacres 20
5. Madman with a Battle Rifle massacres 20. (Battle rifle certainly is a good PR term and quite popular now).
6. Madman with a rifle that stylistically looks like a modern assault whose definition is based on a gun used by Hitler's armed forces and perhaps named by him (but really isn't because it isn't fully auto) massacres 20.
Which headline is least likely to lead to legislation to ban this thing that goes bang every time you pull the trigger?
The terminology is not an important issue anymore, that horse has left the barn. Gun aficionados can demand linguistic purity to no avail. The clarification about semi vs. full is now well known. The use of MSSA is common now as gun opponents have taken the critique to heart as is the usage above.
As the great sage, Hillary Clinton said: What difference does it make?
Here are some headlines after a nut with an AR-10 goes berserk :
1. Madman with assault rifle massacres 20
2. Madman with Modern Sporting Rifle massacres 20
3 Madman with an AR-10 massacres 20
4. Madman with a Military Style Semi Auto rifle massacres 20
5. Madman with a Battle Rifle massacres 20. (Battle rifle certainly is a good PR term and quite popular now).
6. Madman with a rifle that stylistically looks like a modern assault whose definition is based on a gun used by Hitler's armed forces and perhaps named by him (but really isn't because it isn't fully auto) massacres 20.
Which headline is least likely to lead to legislation to ban this thing that goes bang every time you pull the trigger?
The tired old argument about the definition of an assault rifle being nonexistent in the hands of civilians is gone now. The term assault rifle has been defined by law. Also the term assault weapon was defined by law years ago. Now kinda seems that 1639 has bound the terms assault rifle and assault weapon together. It has also expanded the category to include all semiautomatic rifles
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Yes. But some gun guy will still write in letters, post, go to FB, Twitter, etc. if someone says an AR-15 is an assault rifle that uses high capacity clips.
That will show them and stop the bans, yes indeedy!!
Anyway - they are used for entertainment!
That will show them and stop the bans, yes indeedy!!
Anyway - they are used for entertainment!
I disagree, to a degree. True, we aren't going to get news media or talking heads to recognize and use the correct terminology. That ship has sailed (and sunk). HOWEVER, it does matter considerably, the terminology (and definitions) that are put in LAW.
And, (pardon the pun) `1639 cuts right to the heart of the action. It does not waste any effort on cosmetic features, they are not mentioned at all. There is no list of "bad features" and your semi is not ok if it only has two but a specially regulated assault weapon if it has 3, etc. There is no mention of caliber, magazine capacity, detachable or fixed mag, no mention of pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, or "the shoulder thing that goes up". None of that.
They take the base definition of a semiautotmatic action and flatly state that any rifle that meets that definition is (legally) a semiautomatic assault rifle.
Every functional semi auto rifle in existence meets the 1639 definition of semiautomatic assault rifle, with the possible exception of certain "antiques" which are not defined in 1639. I don't know what WA is currently using to define antique firearm, but the Fed definition included "manufactured before 1898, and some other things. What semi auto rifle meets that??
Broomhandle carbine??? (oh, wait, that's a stocked pistol, sorry...
)My point here is that it doesn't matter what something is, or is not, all that matters to the law is what the law says it is.
A law could define my chair as a weapon of ass destruction, and charge me a $25 dollar "fee" and require a waiting period and a special "ass consciousness" class before I buy another, and if that is what gets passed into law, then it IS the law, until it is repealed or overturned. It doesn't make my chair a weapon in reality, but reality and the law are not always the same thing these days,..if they ever were...
Correct terminology may not matter (much) in news reports or casual conversation but it can make a huge difference when it becomes the language used in a law.
The language can (usually isn't, but can) be subtle, too. We "dodged the bullet" (actually a time bomb) that was one part of the Fed 94 AWB. That particular time bomb would have allowed them to regulate/ban DA revolvers!!
People would think, "DA revolver is an assault weapon?? NO way!! its manually operate, only holds 6, doesn't have a magazine, or any of the other features..." etc. Except under the law, as written IT COULD HAVE BEEN declared an assault weapon, with all the restrictions pertaining to such, and that would have legal because of the language of the law.
Because the 94 AWB listed the Striker 12 / Streesweeper shotguns as assault weapons, and contained the statement "or any other firearm with mechanisms identical, or substantially similar to.."
The big round part of a Streetsweeper that LOOKS like a drum magazine is not, it is a CYLINDER, just like a revolver. The guns firing mechanism was patterned after (copied from) a DA revolver!!!
I think the only reasons we dodged that particular "bullet" is that the anti's realized that at the time, they had the political momentum to ban semi auto "assault weapons", but not enough to also ban revolvers at the same time, and had they tried the whole bill would have failed to pass.
I believe the "substantially similar to" language was not only just to keep someone from making the same firearm under a different name, but also as a long term "sleeper" poison, to be acted on later when they felt political opinions were more favorable. I also think the only thing that foiled this plan was the failure of Congress to re-authorize the 94AWB, and it's subsequent sunset.
SO, while getting the other side to use the correct terminology for certain guns may no longer matter much to the argument over them, getting the correct terms in the law makes a huge difference to our reality. And we've lost all too much on that front, as well.
44 AMP said:
Words matter because words are the building blocks of thought. If people can't speak about a matter clearly, that signals an inability to think about it clearly.
Legal definitions matter to the degree they are backed by the force of the state, but that process is down stream from the culture that shapes it. if the law says that a wife acts under a husband's direction and that a 10/22 is an assault rifle, then the law is an ass. We aren't obligated to suppress the healthy instinct to sneer at either the false definition or the deception that inspires it.
This is unlike people using "clip" to describe a magazine, one being a widely accepted colloquialism for the other, or a debate about whether "silencer" or "suppressor" is the better term (another instance in which the legislature's opinion isn't dispositive).
No one who examines the history that informs the meaning of the words thinks a semi-automatic rifle is an assault rifle. No one really thinks the favorite rifle for children of all ages, the 10/22, is an assault rifle. It is a knowing deception undertaken for a specific purpose.
If muddled thought is required for some aspect of a law, there is no harm in explaining the deception and ridiculing it. See weapon of ass destruction above. In a correctly ordered world, ridiculous things should be ridiculed.
Last edited:
Actually thought about this more and they have essentially created a new class of weapons, or more accurately, renamed an existing class of weapons.
They’ve re-designated “semiautomatic rifles” as “semiautomatic assault rifles”. The new name, same as the old, included what was previously defined as “assault weapons”. They’ve managed to restrict all semiautomatic rifles by changing the name of the class of weapons.
Our constant bickering with gun control advocates brought this on. We all kept saying that there’s no functional difference between a semiautomatic rifle and an assault weapon... so they just finally believed us and restricted them all.
They’ve re-designated “semiautomatic rifles” as “semiautomatic assault rifles”. The new name, same as the old, included what was previously defined as “assault weapons”. They’ve managed to restrict all semiautomatic rifles by changing the name of the class of weapons.
Our constant bickering with gun control advocates brought this on. We all kept saying that there’s no functional difference between a semiautomatic rifle and an assault weapon... so they just finally believed us and restricted them all.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Not one fussy debate about definitions and chortling about your anal retentive expertise over definitions will be useful in the upcoming bans of semi auto rifles of all flavors. AR, Mini-14s and 10-22s have been used in rampages and are and will be banned.
Folks do not understand the important aspects of the fight and yap about things that will not help and really make gun folks look stupid.
Folks do not understand the important aspects of the fight and yap about things that will not help and really make gun folks look stupid.
You could engage substantively, or on the other hand dismiss as yapping, blather or stupid looking accurate observation of the distance between what words mean and how cynical people misuse them in order to deceive. That others note this doesn't indicate that they don't understand other important aspects of the controversy.
Accepting deceptions and worrying about what you think of as looking stupid surely doesn't keep anything from being banned now, deprives the public conversation of the dissent that may prompt inquisitive people to discover the deception, and may be taken as agreement with the deception. Good faith conversation should not substitute myopic or shallow judgment for exploration of the topic.
Accepting deceptions and worrying about what you think of as looking stupid surely doesn't keep anything from being banned now, deprives the public conversation of the dissent that may prompt inquisitive people to discover the deception, and may be taken as agreement with the deception. Good faith conversation should not substitute myopic or shallow judgment for exploration of the topic.
This does make change. Sometimes for us, sometimes against us. The pitfall of democracy 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Our side was somewhat shortsighted by spending so much effort on trying to get the other side to use the proper terms. I think a lot of people felt that if they explained how the wrong term made the argument foolish then the anti's would (sensibly, of course) recognize the error of their position and simply drop the idea.
Unfortunately, we mis-estimated the zealotry we faced, and still face.
Arguments over proper terminology in law are intended to prevent us getting a law passed banning "the shoulder thing that goes up".
Again, unfortunately the opposition still declines to use the correct terms in laws, they prefer to redefine existing arms under the terms they prefer to use.
Other side of the language definition coin are those who define an assault weapon as any weapon used to assault someone. Grammatically possible in English, but not really correct in the real world.
A whole host of things not already discussed here goes into effect July !. WHEN (not if) someone gets arrest and charged with some violation of the new law (so they have standing in court).
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.
There's a host of other things in 1639 that seem ripe for legal challenge. This one will be ...enlightening.. to watch it work its way though the courts.
I would hope for a complete repeal on Constitutional grounds, but that seems unlikely. I think repeal / striking down of certain parts to be much more likely, and I hope I'm not wrong but we'll just have to wait and see.
44 AMP said:
And why haven't we banned rape whistles? Who would even want such a thing?
Emphasis added. I won't suggest that no one has ever thought that, but my take was that Carlson's question about the barrel shroud was intended to (and did amply) illustrate that Carolyn McCarthy had a zeal not founded in a knowledge of what she wanted banned and regulated. (Colin Ferguson's pistol had no barrel shroud and only a single magazine he reloaded from loose rounds during the murders.)
ammo.crafter
New member
money
Beware Bloomberg/Soros funding.
Beware Bloomberg/Soros funding.