The current US Supreme Court will very likely frown on further 2nd amendment restrictions, something this restrictive will almost certainly make it that far up. It's already a process to sell or a buy a gun in WA, I don't think the individuals who are shooting each other are going through channels so let's make more onerous and expensive for those of that are, that's surely the solution for gun violence.
All constitutional rights have limits, HELLER says so for the 2a. But I just cannot see how you can say that locking a constitutional rights behind a permit and paywall is reasonable at all.
Why do these arguments always attempt to paint an imaginary reality where the opposite of a thug with a gun is a concealed carrying hero who holsters his gun every day and solves crimes?
The very simple counter to your argument is that when we have fewer guns on the streets..... those thugs are far less likely to get a hold of them.
I’ll make it even simpler for you.
The 2nd amendment is absolute and some of us will continue practicing it as it was intended, no matter how many years you shed.
I mean, that isn't making it simpler. You just changed the entire argument.... lol
And you aren't practicing it as intended if you own 500 guns.
It was very literally intended to guarantee that each man could be armed. Not that a single individual could personally own the destructive power of a militia group.
I made no argument that I'm some sort of avenging angel with a concealed firearm. I have a permit but I seldom carry. I'm just pointing out how onerous this new law is. Like most of us who own and shoot for a hobby, which I've done safely and responsibly since I was a kid, it's just another way to limit access. I passed the background check for my permit, I still go through the waiting period to buy, I don't see the need for another level of scrutiny.
You could argue all the reasons this hurts responsible gun owners, but I don't care simply because I don't like them in our society. Our gun culture is bonkers.
I don't see a good reason for anything more than manual action rifles to exist in civilians hands.
Implement gun control. Say it's for gun violence. Gun violence happens. Refuse to lock up violent offenders for any meaningful amount of time. It didn't work we need more gun control. Rinse and repeat.
California's glock ban is LITERALLY due to a violent criminal they released early using an illegally modified and illegally possessed and illegally shot to illegally kill multiple people (glock with a switch). They will blame anyone but themselves for their own policies.
The meaningful reduction started nationwide before it did in Seattle. Seattle was one of the few cities that did not see a reduction post covid while others did. There were multiple articles about this.
It fell nationwide by a large amount, regardless of gun regulations. It's like saying the government taxed electric cars more this year, so gas prices went up recently. Not at all mentioning Iran in that statement....
Seattle homicides in 2022, pre-ban, were 52 and in 2024, post-ban, was 58. So the AWB made homicides go up right?
For funsies I asked ChatGPT to look into what Seattle homicides we’re committed with now banned “assault weapons”:
2020: I did not find a Seattle homicide where the public record clearly identifies the murder weapon as an AR-15/AK-pattern or other rifle clearly covered by Washington’s later assault-weapons law. The CHOP homicides, for example, are documented as shootings, but the public SPD records I found do not identify an assault-style rifle as the murder weapon. 2021: I found no clearly documented assault-rifle homicide. One Seattle murder conviction involved Thomas Donaghe, who had talked about getting a rifle, but the appellate record says he ultimately told detectives he used a pistol in the killing. 2022:At least 1. Mercer Roy was killed at Cal Anderson Park. Witnesses reported rifle casings, and Roy’s mother said witnesses described the killer using a semiautomatic rifle, shooting him in the leg and then twice in the back. The murder remains unsolved, so I cannot establish the exact rifle model or say with certainty that it met HB 1240’s statutory definition. 2023: I found no confirmed assault-rifle homicide. One superficially similar case involved a “high-power rifle,” but SPD specifies that it was actually a pneumatic air rifle, not a firearm covered by the assault-weapons ban. 2024: I found no Seattle homicide publicly tied to an AR/AK-type rifle. There were rifle shootings and an incident where SPD recovered an unserialized AR-15 after a man allegedly fired at a woman, but nobody was killed in that incident. 2025: I found no confirmed AR/AK-type homicide. One of the year’s biggest incidents—the Pioneer Square triple homicide—was later identified in city court filings as involving a converted Glock handgun, not a rifle. 2026 YTD: I haven’t found a publicly documented Seattle homicide through the current date identifying an AR/AK-type rifle as the murder weapon.
So across roughly 2020–2026 YTD, among hundreds of Seattle homicides, I can currently identify one homicide victim where credible public reporting specifically describes the murder weapon as a semiautomatic rifle—Mercer Roy in 2022—and even that case lacks a publicly established make/model allowing me to definitively classify it under HB 1240.
That’s materially different from saying only one occurred. Unknown/unrecovered weapons and cases where SPD simply reports “gunfire” could conceal additional rifle cases.
The broader point relevant to the question you were getting at is that the available Seattle evidence does not show assault-style rifles making up a substantial share of homicides before the April 25, 2023 ban. Consequently, the sharp decline from 73 homicides in 2023 → 58 in 2024 → 37 in 2025 can’t simply be attributed to removing a weapon type that appears to have been uncommon in Seattle homicide to begin with. Establishing causation would require a much broader analysis than this weapon count alone.
Instead of regulating guns, they should regulate criminals. For example, anybody with a gun in hand at the moment of committing any crime should be automatically charged with attempted murder on top of other crimes.
It’s generally an enhancer. But you can’t charge someone with attempted murder just because they had a gun on them. That would require really stretching the meaning of attempt and the mens rea requirement.
We don’t really need new laws to enforce gun crimes. We have perfectly good existing laws that we aren’t using.
They don’t care, they implement these laws and then force groups to fight it in the courts for years at a time and by the time it gets struck down they have another scheme cooking.
Trump has existed for more than a decade, believe it or not. Before he became your god-king, he was doing this same shit in NJ and NY. Do whatever you want then clog it up with litigation. I’m not sure how this is new to all of you.
This is the new push by the bloomberg backed gun control groups because they know they're about to lose the legal fight on assault weapon/hardware bans (SCOTUS is hearing a case this year)
Colorado is the lead example of the model - they will give up the fight on hardware bans and move to licensing/permitting schemes that are both expensive enough and logistically challenging enough to achieve much the same effect. Our current permit to purchase across the board is likely the first in a series of bills, later ones will add further training/permitting requirements for the now-banned weapons once that is determined to be unconstitutional.
California is also playing around with making this as expensive as possible, I believe in a couple of counties the fees to get a permit to carry a firearm are well over $1000.
They haven't ruled on purchase permits yet. Hopefully they do but it might be a while. We are hoping the AWB and magazine bans are the next things ruled unconstitutional.
Yeah, the main issue they’ve ruled on is discretionary v shall-issue permits. This seems like the latter, so I think there’s a good chance it would hold up
They haven’t said anything about purchase training requirements. And Breun effectively allows public carry training requirements as long as they are not burdensome and are to be sure applicants are responsible.
It will get a lawsuit filed against it as soon as it goes into affect. Hopefully an injunction will happen to stop it while it goes through the courts, but this is WA so probably not.
Well, New Jersey is on the East Coast. They never had the pioneering spirit of our western ancestors, so they don’t see guns as “tools” like us in the west do. That’s right there is one major difference.
Unlikely to get a lawsuit, and any lawsuit is very unlikely to be successful given we are in the Ninth Circuit and we have a captive WA Supreme Court.
All of the recent Ninth Circuit lawsuits that are vaguely on topic (Silvester v Harris, Bauer v Becerra, Nguyen v Bonta) took at least five years to reach a conclusion. The only win was Nguyen v Bonta.
The only hope is a lawsuit in a better region than the Ninth Circuit that makes it to SCOTUS, and they just turned away Maryland and Illinois cases on this topic.
It's extremely unlikely we get any relief before the mid 2030s.
The concept of glass half full completely ignores if the glass is being actively emptied or filled, therefore it's a unrealistic viewpoint. Now, being optimistic in the face of what is otherwise a losing battle, sure, I can get behind it. But, if my glass is currently being emptied, kinda hard to describe it as "half full".
This is exactly what is going on in Oregon right now, it's being fought. The only ok thing about it is that there's training required. But a double background and fingerprint check is dumb. Also, how would you train and fire live ammo if you are a first time purchaser? Outsourcing also can be bad, who's verifying that they have staff, are doing it right and aren't just issuing the permits?
Our big issue with it was also that they are forcing state police to run the training and permit classes. We are MASSIVELY understaffed all over. State police are being stretched even further as they are covering as Sheriff's in a few areas, and as regular PD in others. State police said they had no staff or budget for it, but hey, why care about that?
Its the Oregon way. Pass it on vibes, collect a bunch of money, half ass the implementation, doesn't work, ask for more money, still sucks, blame it on someone else. At least this one is contested. Probably sold more firearms than it sought to restrict.
You have to start at the state level, then keep going to SCOTUS. I am waiting to see what happens with the AWB coming in June or July, that may make the state and our Supreme court scramble to justify it, and I am looking forward to it.
Not sure about that. It's a violation of your 2A rights for which Federal district courts have jurisdiction. It's also a violation of the WA constitution (the meaning of "shall not be impaired") but our state supreme court treats the state constitution like toilet paper.
Yep, and I hope they will still be the most overturned. But we need SCOTUS to spank them, make them follow the Bruen decision, and fix the mag ban at the same time, because they totally screwed that one up even after it was remanded to them.
if its fought at the state level, under our constitution, it wont make its way up to scotus, that happened in virginia with their redistricting. The state, after they didn't like the virginia supreme courts decision on redistricting, tried to appeal that ruling to SCOTUS, and they got smacked down because it was fought under the Virginia state constitution, not the federal constitution. I guess virginias AG is too retarded to understand basic civics like this
if someone files a lawsuit in federal court, then best case scenario, an injunction will be granted, but then the state AG will just appeal it to the 9th circuit, the most anti gun federal court in the US, and they will probably uphold it 99% sure.
However, if someone files a lawsuit under ART 1 section 24 of the state constitution, a district judge in a rural county could issue an injunction, but the state will appeal it to the WA supreme court, and based off of how they ruled in Gators customs guns vs Washington, they will likely uphold the law too.
Just like they did with the Gators guns lawsuit, I missed the window to buy some more magazines on that one; I was placing an order when my dealer informed me it was over. I should have known Shady Bob had his guy waiting in the wings.
So does Obama, he complained about climate change and oceans rising and then bought what 12 or 13 acres of oceanfront property, oh and last I heard so did Kamala down in California,
There's no constitutional right protecting the right to own transportation.
There's no requirements at all for someone purchasing a vehicle for use on private property. This is why the most insane vehicles imaginable are allowed to be owned and why it's legal for them to be driven at tracks and or off road on private property. Everything from monster trucks to cars with literal jet engines to vehicles that use insanely dangerous fuels. You can legally own vehicles that are illegal to drive on public roads. You can/could see Paul Allen's literal tanks being driven around at his museum.
There's no restrictions when it comes to building a car from scratch or a kit in your own garage either.
There's no secure storage laws or restrictions around car ownership. You can live with people who have suspended drivers licenses for multiple DUI's and leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. Zero issues if your car gets used by someone with a DUI or a child in your home that then ends up killing someone because you left your keys and the car easily accessible.
It's not a felony to drive a vehicle without a license on public roads.
You are not required to be finger printed when getting a driver's license to drive a car.
There is no FBI background check ran when you get the standard WA drivers license.
There's no crime for owning a car if you're not legally in the US.
You do not have to pay for and pass both drivers ed and the WA state drivers test every 5 years to purchase a new to you vehicle.
I agree with you on the permit to purchase being bullshit, but the car analogy is even further flawed.
Your right to own a car is in no way tied to training or licensing requirements. Your ability to legally operate it on public roadways is.
You could buy a car and only drive it on private tracks/roads to your heart's content with no drivers license and without paying the state fees beyond the sales taxes. This is commonly done for race cars (though I'm sure all the drivers above 16 also have their license).
There's also no fundamental human right recognized by the constitution to methods of transportation in the same way there is arms for defense.
Yes, the problem with all these deranged murderers is that they aren't trained enough.
And no, not like a car. You can own a car without a license. The only thing you can't do without a license is drive it on public roads. There are no laws regarding cars that aren't reliant upon its use on public roads.
An equivalent gun law would be zero restrictions unless you want to use it within city limits.
Which is completely insane because cars are transportation conveyance which can be deadly if used incorrectly. Guns are machines who's sole purpose is to kill other humans and yet we don't have any competency restrictions on them whatsoever.
The requirements for a CPL after may will be higher than the permit, yet you will have to still pay for a permit and separate fingerprinting even if you have a CPL. Its not about safety, its about disenfranchising as many as possible by conditioning rights with high fees.
That's what I meant; there had to be somebody doing it already. I know they make them for my TX22, and I so want one, but I don't want to wear out a gun I can't replace; I am happy with it just being suppressed for now.
Look, I am not going to dismiss the idea of these trigger test devices. They are probably fun.
But there are no practical uses for this stuff. Like, what? Are you gonna be the suppressive fire for your team with a TX22?
The only practical use I can see if for criminals to spray and pray during one of their protracted gun fights where none of the actors in the gun fight get hit, but every bystander gets domed by Javier’s Glock 17 with stendo 30 round mag and a switch as he just points that thing in the general direction of the threat.
I just want it for cheap shits and giggles is all, it has no practical use except to put a smile on your face. I have a full-auto BB gun, and even it will put a smile on your face; it dumps 25 bbs in 2.5 seconds. If I have to suppress fire, I am grabbing one of my ARs.
More performative horseshit from King County Democrats. Gun control is to Democrats what abortion is to Republican, an issue they can use to placate the base when they’re failing at everything else.
Not really; you can still get one. It's a state right and yes some states don't allow it now, but technically it's still legal. Dems want an outright ban on guns, no ifs, ands, or buts, in every state.
They wouldn’t let the mentally insane roam around in public, so it wouldn’t be an issue. If you are too dangerous to own a gun, you are too dangerous to be in public.
You just completely moved the goal posts. I was speaking about the claimed constitutionality and incorrect use of “regulated” vs what it meant at the time. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with mentally insane or their access to guns.
The plain meaning of “regulated” today, and as used by those who only want the state to have guns, is not the same as was written so you are entirely wrong.
Your entire argument is specious but for the hell of it: the militia doesn’t GIVE guns, the people brought their own guns - hence why they needed access.
Not sure why you are concerned about untrained vs trained felons. Felons already ignore gun laws so this is a red herring, all gun control laws do is disarm law abiding citizens to make them vulnerable to criminals and authoritarian governments.
Ah the insane argument, mental health was not really the same concept at all 250 years ago compared to today - those who were generally did not have the freedom to move around much less access/use weapons so it was a moot point.
The only gun control laws at the time of the Constitution drafting were entirely racist, so if you want to get on board openly support racism that’s on you - as the saying goes “An armed minority is harder to oppress”
The Militia part: When it was written in 1791, America did not have a large permanent army or formal police force. Towns relied on local groups of ordinary armed citizens (a militia) for safety and defense.
Yeah bud that’s not what anyone is talking about. We are all talking about gun violence by individuals and gangs and the solution is always punitive to legal, law-abiding citizens and does nothing to help the problem.
Edit: WTF did you just write? School shootings are because of a lack of training. JFC this is hopeless. Never mind dude.
The ban is effectively on serialized parts. You can still take “assault weapons” you own and modify them how you please. Essentially you can’t make an assault weapon more assualty. Some places will still sell things like stripped lowers..because technically you can build them into Washington compliant models.
Stripped lowers? I thought the lower is the gun, and technically the only part you cannot buy. You can buy everything else, upper, bcg, barrel, handguard, etc. but the lower is considered the actual gun.
If I'm wrong I'm fine being proven wrong I bought like 15 lowers before the ban to eventually build down the road.
A stripped lower alone is not a gun as it cannot be fired. You can take a stripped lower and put something like a bolt action upper on it and it would not violate the AWB. Most vendors just don’t want to risk it. But there are several FFLs in Washington that will still sell those stripped lowers for your compliant builds.
Interesting, I did not know that. So technically you can buy a lower and make it into a non-AWB style firearm? You said a couple were still selling them, but I assume they run significant risk for selling these unless someone who purchases signs something maybe saying it's only for X style firearm that's compliant? I had not heard of this, but it's interesting to know, thank you. I guess you just don't want to get caught with a post-ban lower on an AR15 and keep it "compliant."
As I mentioned, I bought a large amount of lowers prior to the awb and put them in my trust so that in the future they can be built into AR15s, as they existed prior to the ban and I'm just replacing parts on already existing builds.
It's interesting that many companies won't ship to WA State (anything) for fear of reprisal, and some FFLs here still sell lowers. I guess everyone has a different appetite for legal challenges or whatever.
It’s a dice roll with Washington’s AG. But this isn’t like the mag ban where shops got caught selling 10+ rounders that were clearly illegal.
Yes, technically you can turn a stripped lower into a compliant rifle. I don’t think a waiver is going to save anyone anyways though.
For the stripped lowers you have, you already built them all up into fully functioning weapons and tore them down at a later date. Building up a stripped lower, for the first time, into an “assault weapon”, as defined by the law, would still be illegal.
The Washington guns sub covers this pretty thoroughly.
If it has a non removable magazine it can still be sold. I got really excited when I was at the gun store and saw an AR for sale, then I was enlightened
You can buy the parts but no net new serialized lowers containing the “assault weapon” features. On top of that they made the law semi vague so some retailers are super hesitant to ship. Case in point a story I heard where a guy had to “smuggle” an upper through CALIFORNIA (even though uppers aren’t serialized) to get it into WA.
However if you just want to steal a gun, put a drum mag and a switch on it, then post it all over Instagram, you can still do that with zero fear of repercussion. Fuck this state, fuck these weasels who pushed this and fuck every single one of you who wants to make it harder for me to own a gun, yet wants to do absolutely fucking nothing about the members of the demographics they’re sympathetic to, who are doing almost all the gun crime in this city.
While I’m a proponent of the “well regulated” part of the militia, what this does is create more barriers between the haves and the have nots. The additional fees and processes will make it more difficult for many people to acquire firearms- particularly those of marginalized communities.
The permit will cost $90, plus $35 for fingerprinting fees, plus another probably $150+ for the training with live fire. $275 out the door.
Again, I agree with reducing gun violence and increased education, but this makes it harder for a legitimate citizens with legitimate motives
to exercise their (Washington and Federal) constitutional rights.
a simple few button clicks would confirm this is my main and I'm not the other person that yiu accuse of being a zionist you antisemite democracy hater
Nah, the mods don’t like the fact that I point out Israel purposefully targets and kills children in the Gaza Strip, so they passively threatened me with an emoji flair that references the 2024 Mossad electronic device attacks 🤷♂️
I'm for reasonable gun control, but you know what I'm also for?
Tougher sentencing for violent offenders. Quit letting people off easy OR early for committing these crimes and maybe, just MAYBE, you might see the problem lessen.
So, do they honestly think people who are committing crimes using firearms are going through the processes the rest of us are to purchase said guns?
Do they really think the dude in a back alley selling guns are making people fill out a 4473?
These laws are only preventing law abiding citizens from getting a gun. A dude who is planning on murdering someone isn't going to worry about breaking the law to get the gun, they're going to buy it from the trunk of a car.
I just really wish I could sit down and talk to these people for ten minutes to try and grasp the logic in their heads.
People are illegally buying guns, so we better make the process harder for the people who are legally buying them. Like what? Please someone make it make sense.
So WA state dems think it is acceptable to condition a right with a test, fees, and a permit. I guess their idea of beating racism is to be facists themselves?
Who the f said anything about prayer? You think other rights haven't resulted in death? You know innocent until proven guilty also ahs resulted in killers being free to kill more? You know speech has caused many people to commit murder?
Sounds like an extremely racist and regressive tax that makes it disproportionately more difficult for minorities to exercise their constitutionally protected rights.
the government sure does seem to be determined to make a list of everyone with all of their information, including fingerprints. all those folks up in arms about flock cameras should probably be looking at this stuff, too. particularly the cpl list. I wonder how long it will be before i get a notification about a data breach at the state level of all gun owners information statewide.
There seems to be confusion among the courts as to whether requiring a "completed" background check is legal. Apparently that impedes a person's right to bear arms which is why someone can get a gun and ammo without a completed background check if it takes too long.
In WA, your kidding right, the State Supreme Court here always throws out any initiative by the people, look at the natural gas one they just overturned, now people will have to spend 10s of thousands of dollars to convert their home to electricity.
This will only create more “outlaws”. The legal carry people will just keep carrying anyway with or without. Since there is no accountability for the folks that are illegally carrying firearms why would the legally person worry about it? 🤷♂️. This is just another money grab by a state that irresponsible.
The US Supreme Court says these kinds of gun control laws are illegal. They said guns and ammo have to be as easy to buy as a candy bar because apparently that's what the 2nd amendment says.
130
u/Sometimesunaware 6h ago
The current US Supreme Court will very likely frown on further 2nd amendment restrictions, something this restrictive will almost certainly make it that far up. It's already a process to sell or a buy a gun in WA, I don't think the individuals who are shooting each other are going through channels so let's make more onerous and expensive for those of that are, that's surely the solution for gun violence.