WA lawmakers push to ban semi-automatic weapon sales

bk425 said on January 18, 2010 at 7:28 AM

This bill is only a symptom of the real problem; legislators who won't take reality for an answer. We need more people like the sponsors of the Washington Firearms Freedom Act: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2709&year=200 And fewer of the type who sponsor nonsense like this ban: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6396&year=2009 Just click those links and the sponsors name at each is a link to that sponsor's home page. For the first group it should be easy to write a letter in support. For the second you can find the folks running against them and send a few bucks that direction. Because as long as the latter group has power you know they'll abuse it with infringements on your freedom like this. -Boyd K

gimmer said on December 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM

@garmo98: luckily for you and your distaste for game meat, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting use! @davidadams: Kalifornization is right; and it will be our undoing.

brewskzilla said on December 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM

garmo98... First of all... American citizens are SUPPOSED to be allowed to own military weapons. We are supposed to be armed as well, or BETTER than our military, and though many disagree, that includes howitzers and tanks, too. Semi-auto or FULL-auto should make no difference. Yes, Automatic firearms are designed for military use, and one of our DUTIES as citizens of the United States is to take up arms, that is, MILITARY arms, against tyranny in government. That is the de-facto meaning of the second ammendment. Nobody who knows what they are talking about will refute that. Those who do are showing their own ignorance. So you dont like wild game. Not the issue, here, is it? The issue is that banning any kind of weapon at ALL is a violation of the Constitution. Any weapon at all. Whether it be a musket, an SKS or a Browning M2 machine gun, any and all weapons are supposed to be not only allowed, but ENCOURAGED. Why? To keep the government honest. AND the criminals.

morganthomas said on December 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM

It is interesting that no one has stated whether either victim was shot with semi automatic weapon. Sounds like it's just a ploy by the anti gunners to beat on their chests and throw sticks. Maybe they should go talk to their judges instead. Especially the one who let people out of jail early. But then again it is tough to make sense with a person who wears a black rob, over his clothes, inside of a building with a perfectly good roof.

teufel said on December 19, 2009 at 12:17 AM

Okay, let’s ban all alcoholic drinks in this state. Then we wouldn’t have any drunk drivers killing innocent people. Oh, Washington State would loose out on revenue. Besides prohibition never did work. Why is it that the idiot Dems from Seattle are always trying to control the rest of the state?

tacwilster said on December 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Wow lots of response to this news! If they can ban the guns from criminals too than go for it, but as usual it will only be the law abiding citizens that the ban will affect. Stop trying to outlaw guns in the hands of good people when you can't even keep the criminals in jail that are the ones that are killing people!

davidadams said on December 18, 2009 at 2:11 PM

The 4 in Lakewood were killed with a REVOLVER.. 16th Century technology..it has to do with modern rifles HOW, again?

jmcaul said on December 18, 2009 at 12:22 PM

ATTN MS. BRILL: You have been duped. Your first sentence states that this newest push to ban semi-automatic rifles is "in response to a pair of shooting deaths in recent months." The three lawmakers involved got you to parrot their point of view hook, line and sinker. The TRUTH is: these three and their cohorts in WA Ceasefire have been looking for an excuse to push such a ban through for a loo-oo-oo-o-ong time. The two recent shootings have provided them (so they think) with an excuse to push their anti-gun agenda even harder. A MORE HONEST (or, giving you the benefit of the doubt, a more well-researched) lead in to this story would have read: "Opportunistic politicians and anti-freedom pressure groups exploit recent tragic events in a cynical ploy to further erode the rights of law abiding Washingtonians." May I suggest doing a little more homework before you write your next piece?

livinglife said on December 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Banning a semi auto is not going to do any good, banning guns wont do any good. Crime rates will just go up! Obviously the criminals dont care about the law so why would they give them up or not smuggle them into washington? They are going to say Hey knowbody can protect themselves now. And even IF they don't have guns they will find some thing. Anything can be used as a weapon, there hands, a knife, a fork, a shoe lace. Its stupid to ban guns because of the morons. So much for a FREE country. If people are against guns well then thats your own choice. why take away everybody elses rights. I have ALWAYS lived in a house with guns. I always loved going target shooting with my dad when I was younger and now going with my husband and friends. I have not seen or heard of anybody killed or injured by any one that I know of. Its not the OBJECTS fault its the PERSONS fault. Should we do background checks? Yes that would be reasonable but to ban them is stupid

garmo98 said on December 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I grew up in a family of gun owners and hunters. Many family dinners centered on the latest trophy. I never developed a taste for venison that tasted like sagebrush, ducks with a bit of a fishy aftertaste, or picking the buckshot out of a bite of pheasant. As an adult I have a very hard time equating my father's hunting skills and the need for guns that can spit bullets faster than you can spell Winchester in the hands of ordinary citizens. Is taking out the entire herd in 3 minutes or bagging a whole flock the ultimate goal? Part of responsible gun ownership is the use of common sense. Automatic weapons were designed for military use not sport. Those who say "guns don't kill people" are correct; but no one killed a mass of strangers in a mall with a butcher knife, nor did they take the lives in a cafeteria with a club. I would rather take my chances with a crazy person one shot at a time rather than end up gunned down like some piece of Swiss cheese.

chuckstr76 said on December 18, 2009 at 9:45 AM

If you take a gun out of its case, does it kill? not without some help... Why don’t these idiots put their efforts towards teen pregnancy prevention...

teddybear253 said on December 18, 2009 at 9:22 AM

Do you hear the sucking sound? Thats our rights being taking away. What now? Doesn't the lawmakers of this state have anything else to do? Wait, Wait how about getting jobs in this state? Why wast my tax dollars on something that is so wrong. You already have laws on the books, just use them and not let the bad guys off the hook. Wait here you go build more prisons which mean more jobs, more taxes collected. (hint,hint) The laws are in the books just get the DA office to use the laws! Make the bad guy pay for his crime!! Why do I, the good guy have to pay the price. So if the nuts in Olympia want to be jobless,(hint,hint, which could happen) then push this bill, and I the "Voter, will vote you OUT OF OFFICE"!

olyboy said on December 18, 2009 at 8:34 AM

The second amendment is specifically directed toward the citizen's ability to defend himself against the potential for tyranny in government. What better defence than the government's potential weapon against it's citizens? I'm not making this up, this is what the author of the Declaration of Independence thought: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " Thomas Jefferson It's also interesting to note that in the case of the Lakewood shootings, the shooter was a felon and therefore was in violation of the law even having a gun. All this proposal would do is prevent the honest citizen from owning these guns, criminals don't care about the law. Our legislators need to spend more time thinking about limiting the amount of our money they spend and less on passing laws with no hope of changing anything.

jmcaul said on December 18, 2009 at 8:32 AM

Gun Rights supporters: Support Big 5 Sporting Goods stores. They are under attack by WA Ceasefire because of their courageous decision to carry perfectly legal semi-automatic weapons for their gun buying customers. Let Big 5 know that you are shopping there BECAUSE OF their willingness to stand up to the gun grabbers!!!

ramtwo said on December 18, 2009 at 7:21 AM

johnnypillz Thanks!

sumner_son said on December 18, 2009 at 7:20 AM

Per the Seattle Times, the three legislators are: Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina; Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle. These people swore to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions?? I especially love the quote:""Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that's someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish," said Fascitelli." THAT statement is so ludicrous, it brings into question the mental ability of that person to even fathom reality. It sounds more like a PETA statement than someone who purports to know the least bit about any firearm. It boggles the mind. What really amazes me is that there are legislators who would even want to associate themselves with someone of this caliber. The statement makes it clear this is not about banning semi-automatic "military" rifles; it's about banning all firearms, as well as hunting and fishing, and is clearly just another a PETA ploy

sumner_son said on December 18, 2009 at 7:17 AM

Per the Seattle Times, the three legislators are: Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina; Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle. These people swore to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions?? I especially love the quote:""Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that's someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish," said Fascitelli." THAT statement is so ludicrous, it brings into question the mental ability of that person to even fathom reality. It sounds more like a PETA statement than someone who purports to know the least bit about any firearm. It boggles the mind. What really amazes me is that there are legislators who would even want to associate themselves with someone of this caliber. The statement makes it clear this is not about banning semi-automatic "military" rifles; it's about banning all firearms, as well as hunting and fishing, and is clearly just another a PETA ploy

justcommenting said on December 18, 2009 at 6:48 AM

a single shot 12 gauge slug round will do some killin .anyone who is against this unconstitutional ban should now join the National Rifle Association. $35.00 a year is a good price to protect your 2nd amendment right! it may also save your life! as Chuck Norris says............"i do not call 911"

stryker said on December 18, 2009 at 6:37 AM

Fascitelli, your a nut job! My son has a rapid fire Nerf space laser ray gun, is that gonna be banned? A semi auto is a semi auto regardless of what it looks like. The nit picking is stupid.

davidadams said on December 18, 2009 at 6:07 AM

Here comes more Kalifornization of Washington. -

lc450 said on December 18, 2009 at 5:32 AM

people need to watch this so that they may have a better understanding of the difference between a assault rifle and a semi-auto sporting rifle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&feature=related

justcommenting said on December 18, 2009 at 5:17 AM

i have only 30 round clips

stroker451 said on December 18, 2009 at 5:13 AM

What a bunch of idiots in Olympia and Washington Ceasefire!!! The only way a gun can kill is by a bad guy pulling the trigger. Just because 2 people were killed with semi-automatic weapons doesn't mean that all semi-automatic guns will now be used by the bad guys to kill again. They may use a revolver next time or a single shot shot-gun. Find something else to ban like your idiotic thinking. I would prefer to have a semi-automatic or better yet a fully-automatic weapon to defend myself against one of these pieces of trash. Oh, that's right. The idiots have already banned fully-automatic weapons!!!! Grow a brain and move on to something else much more productive. Remember, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution and was put there for a very good reason waaaaaaaay back when. Think about it if you have half a brain!!!!!

johnnypillz said on December 18, 2009 at 4:27 AM

ramtwo..... I LOVE YOU!!!

ithurts said on December 18, 2009 at 2:12 AM

200 rounds a minute is only an average of 3 1/3 rounds per second, that's easy to do with a semi-auto. You won't be able to hit anything accurately, but you can put that many rounds down range.

deerslayer74 said on December 18, 2009 at 1:06 AM

I like to quote Larry McDonald " We have four boxes with which we defend our freedom: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. "

yours_truly said on December 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM

We were expecting a reaction to recent events. The lawmakers should visit all shooting ranges in the state to witness responsible people who enjoy shooting, especially vintage and modern military weapons. Do us all a favor and focus your efforts on why judges and prosecutors allow extremely dangerous people back out on the streets.

blankingout said on December 17, 2009 at 11:31 PM

If Ceasefire members are so confident about banning guns, they should proudly post a sign on their property supporting it. A large sign too with florescent colors that can be seen even at night.. Make sure it proudly states "There are no guns in this house".

ramtwo said on December 17, 2009 at 11:06 PM

nasl09 all I did was read the article. Did you? There are three WA State "Law Makers" that are interested in banning sale of so calle assault weapons. I don't know who they are but time will tell. nasl09 I am thinking for myself...Banning any weapons sales will not help anyone. I am a gun owner, have been for years. I had a permit to carry a concealed weapon for many of those years as well. My weapon of choice was a Colt Commander. Great little gun to have on had when one is out in the sticks doing a little fishing, and say a bear wants your fish. I digress...Maybe I should have said a little more in my earlier statement. Just so I'm clear, I'm against any infringement on the rights of the citizens of the State of Washington, and for that matter the United States. We have the right to carry arms for good reason, and that is to protect ourselves from oppression by our own government! That why the amenment was written in the first place.

proudamerican said on December 17, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Which three Washington state lawmakers? I would like to let them know I do not agree with them.

jmcaul said on December 17, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Free People Own Guns - slaves don't

jmcaul said on December 17, 2009 at 10:41 PM

WA women who want to defend our right to effectively defend ourselves against both criminal and tyrannical threats to our Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are invited to join the newly formed Facebook group: "WA Moms against attempts to disarm us".

bouncer22 said on December 17, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Oh yea, take away the assault rifles. Uh let's see. Wasn't all of the recent killings due to hand guns????? C'mon people, open your eyes. All you stupid idiots or politicians are trying to do is ban something. Just something no matter what it is. It is a step in the right direction they think. Get those off the streets, then we can work on something else. It doesn't dawn on them that it is unconstitutional or that they shouldn't change the constitution. I don't think anyone should be able to change it. That is what our country was founded on we live with it. End of story. If you don't like our laws then go to Canada or Europe. Hey, i'm sure Cuba will accept you.

oldmangreen said on December 17, 2009 at 9:57 PM

What is it called when you do what to prisioners at a time of war? Someone was killed in Iraq for war crimes. Ah who was in charge when America found out war crimes were commited by AMERICANS? The buck stops at whose desk? Who commited war crimes again? Come on say it? WhY MEDIA BLACKOUT? WHY politicians don't talk about it? Why does law enforcement do nothing? All swore an oath, to protect what again? THE Constitution. WHO ALL VIOLATED THIS OATH AGAIN? Who are the criminal's again, I forget?

taxdollarsponge said on December 17, 2009 at 9:52 PM

The government should remember that applying pressure to people results in unwanted behavior.

brianbgw said on December 17, 2009 at 9:41 PM

I have a big problem with that guy they talked to about gun control. everything he said was a lie. i challenge anyone to fine a SEMI-AUTO weapon capable of shooting 200 rounds in a minute. It takes more than one shot to kill most large game, unless you want it to suffer while it dies. Washington Cease Fire is a bunch of idiots. i bet none of them have ever shot a gun. as to the big 5 thing, why should they pull them from their shelves? if they picket i might go buy another one there. I wish these liberal morons would pull their heads out.

upchuckschumer said on December 17, 2009 at 9:32 PM

Just a few gun facts for you liberals to ponder- Federal courts have ruled that police aren't obliged to protect individuals from crime. That means citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3% Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns."

jonjuan said on December 17, 2009 at 9:13 PM

The foolishness of libtards never ends.

mccullmm said on December 17, 2009 at 8:51 PM

You can load any gun with as many rounds as you want and set it in a full room of people and no one will die. Guns don't kill, people do. Banning guns just means good citizens cannot get them. It will not stop criminals from getting their hands on them.

ruxpercnd said on December 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM

What a bunch of nut cases.....!!!! If someone calmly laid out the facts and reasons for gun ownership, then it would not be news. But if some loose wingnuts talk about banning guns then the media is all over it. How insane and what cheap news! Someone should read the U.S. Constitution and Washington State law. Our law protects anyone from being openly intimidated or threatened by someone with a gun. In other words, even though we have an open carry right in this state, nobody walks around with an assault rifle. It doesn't happen. So what is this about? Nut cases on the loose whipping up the media looking for a story. I am going to put down some serious money to buy a new gun when it becomes available. The manufacturers can't seem to keep up demand. Let's see... the logic is that only criminals should have guns and law abiding citizens should be hassled and tracked. Oh yes, that makes a lot of sense for some people. How perverse!

blankingout said on December 17, 2009 at 8:26 PM

I am not worried. If the world comes to a end, It's my opinion I'd converge on Ceasefire members houses for supplies..

doug46 said on December 17, 2009 at 8:19 PM

I just wish people would quite lying about the facts when they talk about banning guns. a semi-auto cannot shoot 200 rounds a minute It would be nice if the media would check some facts once in a while

3rgr75 said on December 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Only fools in WA legislation would think that removing weapons from responsible citizens is going to stop anything. As if the criminal, like Clemens, really went down to a Gun Shop and purchased a weapon legally. He didn't need an assault rifle to take out four cops. In all reality he could have pulled a knife out and taken out at least two. The people that want to ban weapons most likely have never used them and are plainly scared of them because of it. To think that a tool is the reason for the death, the death came from the person who decided to take the tool and kill another. The tool is not at fault. As if saying the car is at fault for the drunk driver running someone over. The argument for making it harder to purchase weapons is flawed. We have the right to bear arms, one for our protection, two for protection from the government when it gets out of control.

nasl09 said on December 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM

Wait a minute....who are the lawmakers? Last time I checked there was no legislator named "Washington Ceasefire" in the Washington Legislature. Since the legislature isn't in session yet, it would be difficult for any of them to be pushing for this ban. Of course, people like ramtwo read the headlines and fail to think for themselves.

shamuspi said on December 17, 2009 at 7:37 PM

I thought the officers were murdered with handguns. I suppose if all five had been killed with AR-15 type rifles, a ban might be worth discussing. But then again, the pile of human garbage that murdered the Lakewood officers would have been seen with a rifle. So lets ban handguns; oh wait a minute. The Supreme Court says you can't do that. DUH!

justcommenting said on December 17, 2009 at 7:36 PM

ONE SHOT!.....ONE KILL! NUFF SAID!

ramtwo said on December 17, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Here we go again. Any chance our "law makers" get to take away our guns you can bet they will take full advantage.

magic said on December 17, 2009 at 6:45 PM

Unconstitutional - Unconstitutional - Unconstitutional Remember folks.......Guns don't kill people, People kill people. And if any of these whacko protestors, or soccer Moms think a ban or anything else is going to keep the guns out of the hands of the "bad guy" you are nuts. The bad guys drive without insurance, or a license. They conceal weapons without a permit to do so. So what makes you think that a law is going to make the "bad guys" say Oh, the law says I can't, well I won't be able to do it then. Come on folks - put 1/2 the energy into getting rid of the idiots in Olympia.

comiccon2010 said on December 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM

I hope they picket. goes to show they are ignorant and want to force their religious and stupid beliefs onto everyone. they have no clue and maybe they should just move to canada or mexico they sure dont act like americans

libretarian said on December 17, 2009 at 6:24 PM

10 rounds? Hell if I want destruction an assault rifle just won't do. Gimme some high octane, a rag & wine bottle. Toss a couple of those bad boys into a crowded shopping mall & see what happens. Bad people will always do bad things, they will find a way. Taking away our RIGHTS is not the answer, just ask Susanna Hupp.