Washington Magazine Ban

[LRRPF52]

It's interesting to read these "discussions".

First, a small question ... it seems that FFLs are allowed to still own high capacity magazines, and to sell them to LEOs. I'm not familiar with Washtington's other laws, but does this mean that a range run by an FFL could rent out high capacity magazines for range usage?


How I feel:
While I'd prefer to see handgun magazine capacities higher at either 15 or 17, I have no issues with magazine limits as a concept. Their implementations should be more nuanced. A magazine limit alone is not an infringement on my rights or anyone else's, in my eyes. That said, I could be convinced that perhaps 10 is unreasonable in favor of 12 or 15 -- this is where data becomes more important than philosophy. Just like a speed limit. There's no moral justification for having a SPECIFIC speed limit, but there is justification for having speed limits in general. And I think gun owners need to hear other gun owners who have this opinion speak up.

FFLs running ranges where people are “allowed” to exercise their enthusiasm for firearms has very little to do with inalienable rights.

An arbitrary restriction on the capability of arms enforced against citizens automatically places the citizens on less than a criminal standard (both private and public sector).

If I’m a criminal intent on harming or robbing the citizenry in any shape or form and I am able to strip them incrementally of their physical ability to protect themselves, I can gain the upper hand by leveraging their disarmament against them. This is predator strategy 101.

Speed limits are a false premise fallacy argument, the premise being that one’s right to self-protection is somehow equatable with modern highway travel in vehicles.

When the only argument against a specific magazine limit legislation that has votes to pass is "YOU can't have magazine limits because MY RIGHTS, WHAAAA", then uninformed liberals legislators will determine some capacity (like 10) that makes sense to them (because it's a round number) without realizing that more logical capacity limits could be determined by analyzing types of firearms and their usage in crime and self defense, and then citing these factors in the reasoning for a specific value.

Explain to me your middle ground on personal and home defense. I think the middle ground argument falls apart very quickly upon a basic analysis.

Are you willing to accept 50% losses during a burglary, including loss of life and limb, or would you prefer to live in extremis where you retain 100% of your family’s safety and property, and the offender is immediately discouraged, seriously injured, or slain?

How about 25% losses to property, family members, and bodily safety? What are you? Some kind of extremist?

See how the “middle ground” fallacy fails a basic inspection?

Why I feel that way:
First, I think the 2A is as absolute as the 1A -- there ARE limitations to all rights (including LIFE) based on balancing all the rights citizens are afforded. A fundamental problem with having so many rights is they can conflict with each other. "Well regulated" has meaning.

The only reason I own 30 round PMAGS is in case SHTF, and I have to defend my government against something like Jan. 6 happening in a more widespread manner across the country. (Same reason I have rifle rated body armor--not for daily use.) WI, where I live, has no magazine limits, but I don't feel a desire to use magazines over 15-20 rounds in my rifles or pistols (depending on cartridge and firearm). I prefer slow and accurate shooting (target and hunting), and don't do 3-gun (or similar) and find no enjoyment in mag-dump style plinking -- nothing against either, but not my thing. (Heck, some of my ARs uppers are currently configured as bolt guns because that's how I prefer to shoot.)

I reject the slippery slope logical fallacies as what they are -- logical fallacies, not logical arguments. Not every regulation on guns is a stepping stone to something further. (That said, I never thought conservative extremists would try to ban life-saving medical care for a woman having a miscarriage when they went after abortion rights, but, just like with gun laws, when people who don't understand the subject write the laws, things can and do go wrong. Facts, not just ideology, are necessary for writing laws.)

January 6th was a Riechstag false flag event designed to prevent multiple Senators and Congressmen from voting a no confidence voice vote in the Capitol Building, as the election was obviously flawed with multiple peculiarities we had never experienced before as a Nation, with a geriatric pedophile who was literally openly mocked during the DNC debates, magically got more votes than any other Presidential candidate in history, with his family’s corruption openly bragged about and exposed via the stupidity of Hunter and James Biden.

For the first time in generations, we had a President with actual groundswell support from the people who packed rallies, whereas Biden couldn’t attract flies even if he didn’t change his pederastic diaper for weeks. This was a guy that was forced out of the DNC primaries in 1988 for plagiarism, who not only supported segregation, but still defended his 1970s co-sponsoring of segregation legislation with KKK Senators of that era, and was called out on it by Cory Booker and Kamalah Harris during the DNC debates in 2020.

So it was no shock that multiple Senators and Congressmen were going to cast a no confidence vote in this “election”. The magnitude of election tampering, vote-counting cessation on election night, trucking-in ballots like Chinesium parts into LA Harbor, and Marxist operatives infested among as many precincts as possible in battleground States left a stench of election-rigging that was too raunchy to ignore, even for the careerists in DC.

False flag by the communist ANTIFA group helped distract everyone from the proceedings in the Capitol, which were interrupted by the ANTIFA ralliers and agent provocateurs. There is voluminous evidence showing these agents and their behavior on January 5th and 6th, none of whom were subpoenaed or charged in the events of Jan 6.

Which government are you intending to protect? The US is a government of, by, and for the people in our foundational documents, not of, by, and for traitors who have sold out to foreign and corporate interests. Those are our enemies, which anyone with a moderate level of brain cells remaining in 2022 needs no persuasion to recognize at this point.

A final note:
The way Washington's law is written, from what I've read, seems designed to slowly dry up the supply of high capacity magazines through economic strangulation over time, rather than a heavy handed confiscation approach. It doesn't need more laws to accomplish this. The enforcement mechanism has criminal penalties, but a big portion is civil enforcement under the Washington's Consumer Protection Act, which includes "OFFERING" high capacity magazines for sale/distribution. (The criminal penalties don't seem to include any for OFFERING the sale/distribution of them.)

All the 2A sanctuary sheriffs, etc., won't matter compared to how manufacturers and supplier behavior changes, specifically reputable online distributors not shipping 11+ round magazines to non-FFLs in WA anymore. The law will shift most of that state's economic demand for magazines to 10 round magazines (as WA citizens replace old magazines over time). As more states have enacted magazine capacities, this will shift demand even more to the 10 round magazines. Change in demand will affect the price gap between 10 round mags and high capacity mags. (Have I mentioned I'd like to pay less for my 10 round PMAG than a 30 round PMAG?)

The sanctuary sheriffs here are political posturing to gain votes -- how many FFL holders will risk losing their license and violate this law and still sell high capacity magazines to the general public? Possibly a few, but likely it will be state agencies to shut them down, not local sheriffs. Chances are those same sheriffs who are "2A sanctuary" ones would only discover someone violating this law if it arises in a different investigation, and at that point it would not be up to the sheriff what charges a prosecutor brings once handed a case.

Bill of Rights has supremacy over State laws that violate the BOR, so Sheriffs who honor their oaths are in the higher ground legally, even though the State Capitols are filled with traitors and leftists who hate our Nation and its people.

CA already pioneered these anti-American strategies with “Assault weapons” and magazine bans. None of those laws are Constitutional even in the slightest. When you especially place this all in context of what happened in 1934, you start to realize we’re merely fighting on the edge over the scraps of the 2A with our backs to the wall. Small arms are almost inconsequential once the gloves come off when you don’t have the arms that were unmolested prior to 1934.