AG introduces proposals for assault weapon reform, supported by Sen. Frockt

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced the introduction of two bills aimed at reducing deadly mass shootings: a previously announced proposal to ban the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and a second, alternative bill enhancing background checks and raising the minimum age required to buy such weapons and magazines.

A review of mass shootings between January 2009 and January 2013 by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that incidents where assault weapons or large capacity ammunition magazines were used resulted in 135 percent more people shot and 57 percent more killed, compared to other mass shootings.
 
Ferguson’s proposal bans the sale of assault weapons, as defined in the bill, similar to legislation passed in New York and Connecticut and upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.

The ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Currently, there is no limit on the capacity of magazines in Washington.

The legislation covers only sales, thereby grandfathering current gun ownership. The legislation would not require registration of existing weapons but would require them to be safely and securely stored.

Sen. David Frockt, D-46, and Rep. Strom Peterson, D-Edmonds, are the bill’s prime sponsors.

"This past year, we all watched in horror as the mass shootings in Orlando and Dallas took place,” said Rep. Peterson. “And then it happened here, in Mukilteo. It's past the time we stand up for our communities and keep these assault weapons from destroying more families.”

A teenager employed at Shoreline Community College was killed in the shooting. See previous article.

Ferguson also proposed a second bill, which creates a new license to purchase and possess assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Sen. Frockt also sponsored the background-check bill.

Similar to a Concealed Pistol License (CPL), Ferguson’s proposed license limits assault weapons ownership to those over 21 years of age. The current minimum age to purchase an assault weapon is 18. Allen Ivanov, the accused perpetrator of the July 2016 Mukilteo shootings, was 19 when he purchased the AR-15 he allegedly used to murder three former classmates and wound another.

A license would be required for any purchase of an assault weapon or high-capacity magazine. At the time of purchase, an additional in-depth background check would be conducted, and all purchases would be subject to a 10-day waiting period — similar to standard handgun purchases.

The license must be renewed annually to ensure the holder maintains eligibility to possess these weapons and magazines.

Representative Laurie Jinkins, D—Tacoma, is sponsoring a companion House bill.

                     

4 comments:

Nanook January 10, 2017 at 11:51 PM  

The vast majority of murders are committed by hand guns, not assault weapons. Assault weapons get all the airplay because the government does not want us to have in our hands the means of resistance.

threeheadedtoad January 11, 2017 at 11:57 AM  

Means of resistance?

No, what they want is an easy scapegoat. "Assault Style" weapons are the poster child for mass murders, school shootings, etc.

I am all for licensing ALL guns, not just handguns. I never understood the theory that outlawing a gun would make the streets safer. All that does is push the gun trade underground - kinda like drugs - it does nothing to stop people from buying or selling guns illegally.

Having some sort of training with firearms is ideal. Education usually means less misuse.

Anonymous,  January 11, 2017 at 3:12 PM  

The gun laws in the U.S. need drastic changes. Less guns and more regulations lead to more citizen safety, not the other way round.

Classes, exams, licensing, and back ground checks have all led to Japan having the lowest gun violence in the world: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729

Completely banning guns in Australia has made a huge difference for gun violence in that country: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/22/what-happened-when-australia-actually-did-something-to-stop-gun-violence/?utm_term=.04345fe1804b

And yet the government hasn't overrun the people in either country.

Anonymous,  January 12, 2017 at 10:59 AM  

It’s NOT more feel good anti-gun rights laws that we need. It’s mental health care laws that need drastic changes.
Japan and Australia are island nations (no pores borders) and much easier to control, not to mention having much smaller populations than the U.S. And despite post WW2 weapons bans mandated by the U.S. at Japan’s surrender (not classes, exams, licensing, and background checks), Japan still has a much higher suicide rate without guns than the U.S. has with them.
Australia's gun ban has only increased their violent crime rate with other weapons. And since the UK banned guns their violent knife crime is epidemic, so now they want to ban knives. Lately, trucks are the weapon of choice for mass murder. It's not the tool, it's the violent human and our current culture of violence and declining moral values.
In case you haven’t checked for yourself, violence committed with legal firearms has been declining steadily in this country for the last 20+ years, despite more legal guns in possession of U.S. citizens in history. We have more guns in circulation then ever before, but less crime. Do the research for yourself. It’s the 24-hour news cycle and hysteria that has people believing there’s a gun violence epidemic. Legal gun owners are not the problem!
Rifles of any type (hunting, shotgun, and yes modern sporting rifles), are only responsible for less than 4% of all crimes committed with firearms nationwide. Knives and blunt objects are used in far more crime than so called “military style assault weapons”. It’s disingenuous to claim these proposed bans will have any impact on violence whatsoever.
What the gun rights prohibitionists call “military style assault weapons”, the government and police call “personal defense weapons”. Why doesn’t our state AG want legal, law abiding citizens to have the same thing? They’re just modern semi-automatic firearms used for target practice, hunting and defense of ourselves and our households; all legitimate uses. They are not “machine guns” or “weapons of war” like the military uses. Just because these firearms might be scary looking to the uninformed, it doesn’t make them more lethal. Banning “military style” non-functional components on a firearm is just ignorant. And no one has the right to tell me I can’t own (or must register) a standard capacity magazine. When the police and military limit their magazine capacity, then we can talk.
I have no problems with background checks as currently required, I have passed all of them and am a CPL holder. It’s none of the government’s business what firearms (private property) or magazines I own. The proposed laws are just another incremental step to firearm confiscation by the government and infringement on our 2nd amendment rights, as well as our WA State Constitutional rights (Article I, Section 24) which is even more clear. How will the government enforce this proposed ban without door to door inspections and confiscations?
Please do your own research and read the proposed laws for yourself. If passed it would ban or heavily restrict and mandate registration/licensing of most modern firearms & owners. What freedoms or civil rights will be banned next?

Post a Comment

We encourage the thoughtful sharing of information and ideas. We expect comments to be civil and respectful, with no personal attacks or offensive language. We reserve the right to delete any comment.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP