“Assault Weapons” Registration in Washington State

I warned people that Bloomberg’s ballot initiatives would blow the door open to more gun control and risk turning the state, and I’m sorry to see that is actually happening:

House Bill 1387 would impose an annual registration and licensing system on the most popular and commonly owned semi-automatic firearms sold today by classifying them as “assault weapons.” In addition, it would prohibit the sale and transfer of standard capacity ammunition magazines labeling them as “large-capacity magazines.” The transfer and sale of these firearms and magazines would be prohibited to anyone other than a federally licensed firearms dealer, a gunsmith or to law enforcement for destruction.

You can bet that if the legislature doesn’t pass these, and make no mistake, you should call and make sure they don’t, Bloomberg is going to spend big to get this on the ballot. Don’t let it happen: this is a precursor to confiscation. That’s not a hyperbole, it’s happened both in California and New York City, where registration lists were used to confiscate firearms later made illegal or reclassified as illegal. If you want to keep your guns, you have to stop this.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More on UBCs and Registration
  2. Ballot Fight in Maine
  3. Nevada Being Primed for More Bloomberg Funded Ballot Initiatives

10 thoughts on ““Assault Weapons” Registration in Washington State”

  2. The only hope for places such as Washington state is the court system. Electorally, there are enough votes concentrated in the monoculture of Seattle to make any consideration of what goes on outside of it irrelevant. It’s enough to make me seriously think about moving away here at least two or three times a week.

    1. Me too. I live in Kitsap County. Most of the people I work with own guns. I moved out of MD after their AWB. Now I’m thinking about moving to Idaho and trying to work from home.

      One Youtuber (Billy Birdzell) had an interesting take on registration. In order to claim common use, he suggested that people actually register their guns. Otherwise, the other side can actually claim that not many are owned. If we claim that we’re just not registering them, the other side can call us criminals.

      1. As much as I hate the concept of registration I agree with this. Stand up and be counted, but understand it may cause you extra problems.

        Here in Colorado when you could carry on an out of state CCW (law has been changed) many people I knew carried on a Florida permit because then the police wouldn’t be flagged on a pull over (technically we don’t have to declare, but most counties flag your DL — or at least did for the first several years — so you can be carrying without a CCW and the cops don’t know, but if you’ve got a CCW you’ve got to declare and go through the hassles).

        But to me … you’ve still gotta get the license, because that’s how you identify yourself and become a group that politicians have to recognize. Politicals from big cities may believe that “gun guys” can be ignored, but if they see that 10% of the voters in their area are licensed for CCW, that will make a difference.

    1. This is the way it will almost certainly go: these measures will eventually fail in the legislature. The Democrats and the anti-gun lobby will fund raise for months on the failure, and initiatives will be filed. They will easily get the required signatures to make the ballot. Bloomberg, Gates, Ballmer, Hanauer, and all the rest that bankrolled the other anti-gun initiatives will pour the money into these as well. The rest of the state will vote as it will, but Seattle will vote over 90% in favor, which will put them over the top statewide.

      That’s what happened with I-594 and I-1491, and that’s what will happen here.

  5. Pingback: Gun control on the march

Comments are closed.