testtest

Washington State bans Sale of High Capacity Mags

KillerFord1977

KillerFord1977

SAINT
Founding Member
Not surprised. Will likely go to court.

But, WA state is only one part of the PNW. Outside of Puget Sound WA state is normal, and lots of folks outside the Sound (largest population = dominates the Legislature) could care less of the crap that comes out of Olympia (sate capital)

OR should be next. Again the Legislature is dominated by the big cities - Portland, Eugene, Salem & Bend, and outside the regular folks have to put up with the crap out of Salem (state capital). Oregon legalized all drug use & prostitution and won't prosecute various crimes like CA.

We over there last summer. Tons of vagrants occupying the Interstate rest areas on I-5 in the Willamette Valley.

I lived there back in the late 70's & thru the 80's, and things have really gone downhill in the big cities.

Sad both used to be nice states.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand there reckoning on how 10 round mags are safer the 15-17 round mags, asinine concept to me, yea you would have to reload the gun sooner but to me it all comes down to the government wanting control over you, not the safety of people.
 
Old_Me said:
whenever i'd buy magazines online, they specify NO sales to states with capacity limits.

i'd be suspecting that one would be asked for a proper ID if walking into a store in a nearby state.
Click to expand...
Not that I saw.

I went to Colorado shortly after they enacted their mag ban. On my way back, I stopped by a gun store in Cheyenne, Wyoming (first major city over the border). There were several vehicles with CO plates there, and a lot of people in the store buying mags…nobody was asked to show proof of residency (I spent some time there waiting for my local dealer to send His FFL, though, because they had a beaut of a Colt 1908 .380 for a good price…).

Most border dealers DGAF.
 
Old_Me said:
whenever i'd buy magazines online, they specify NO sales to states with capacity limits.

i'd be suspecting that one would be asked for a proper ID if walking into a store in a nearby state.
Click to expand...
Yeah, online retailers usually check the “ship to” state and make an attempt at not breaking the law.

Was thinking more about a brick and mortar. If I walk into Academy Sports and buy some P-Mags or pistol mags, they don’t care who I am. In this state we have zero restrictions.

And I could also buy them, take them with me when I go to Seattle, and give them as gifts to friends there. As long as I don’t sell them. 👍
 
HansGruber said:
Not that I saw.

I went to Colorado shortly after they enacted their mag ban. On my way back, I stopped by a gun store in Cheyenne, Wyoming (first major city over the border). There were several vehicles with CO plates there, and a lot of people in the store buying mags…nobody was asked to show proof of residency (I spent some time there waiting for my local dealer to send His FFL, though, because they had a beaut of a Colt 1908 .380 for a good price…).

Most border dealers DGAF.
Click to expand...
In person sales at border-adjacent sites is different than online sales. Online retailers will not normally sell to states for locally banned products.

Weed is illegal in WI, yet WI residents can drive to IL and buy weed legally from any dispensary. Not a direct analogy, but highlights that in-person purchases are treated differently than online purchases.
 
Hi,

It really carbons my chamber when people call standard capacity magazines "high" capacity. Ban a 30 round pistol magazine, fine. I won't like it but at least you'd be speaking the truth. I'm glad i won't be on the Left Coast too much longer.


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
I live in Washington and I'm mad as hell. They're using the tried and true "whittle away" approach. "It bans only the sale, not the possession." We all know how long that will last before they ban the ownership, while allowing previously purchased ones to remain, until they criminalize them, too, etc. until they make you a felon if you have ever even seen one in your life.

If we accept an arbitrary limit of 10, by what logic may we protest if they lower it to 5? If 10 is not unconstitutional, is 5? How could one say? Based on what? What is the unconstitutional number? They will never say, but I will. Infringement happens as soon as an arbitrary limit is imposed, whatever it may be.

I know I'm preaching to the choir. Just venting......AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I guess I have to cling to the faint hope that the House will not pass it, or the state Supreme Court will overrule it ten years from now. Meanwhile, I guess it's "cold, dead hands" time.
 
Ranger715 said:
I live in Washington and I'm mad as hell. They're using the tried and true "whittle away" approach. "It bans only the sale, not the possession." We all know how long that will last before they ban the ownership, while allowing previously purchased ones to remain, until they criminalize them, too, etc. until they make you a felon if you have ever even seen one in your life.

If we accept an arbitrary limit of 10, by what logic may we protest if they lower it to 5? If 10 is not unconstitutional, is 5? How could one say? Based on what? What is the unconstitutional number? They will never say, but I will. Infringement happens as soon as an arbitrary limit is imposed, whatever it may be.

I know I'm preaching to the choir. Just venting......AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I guess I have to cling to the faint hope that the House will not pass it, or the state Supreme Court will overrule it ten years from now. Meanwhile, I guess it's "cold, dead hands" time.
Click to expand...
Once again death by a thousand small cuts, I’m obviously preaching to the choir but established felons don’t/won’t care about magazine limits so this is squarely positioned to impact law abiding citizens which is reprehensible.
 
Annihilator said:
I don’t understand there reckoning on how 10 round mags are safer the 15-17 round mags, asinine concept to me, yea you would have to reload the gun sooner but to me it all comes down to the government wanting control over you, not the safety of people.
Click to expand...

They argue just that: more reloading allows for more escapees. Then they also mentioned Gifford's assailant fumbling with a 33 round magazine.

They also argue that no one's lost a life due to not having a "high capacity" magazine saying people only use two to three rounds to defend themselves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top