All of that is changing now. This threatens to create a lot of instability, legal jeopardy and turmoil, to the possible benefit of only 1 or 2 people.
The state's executive leadership is unremittingly hostile to gun owners. Governor Inslee, who is beginning a probably futile presidential run in 2020 (already costing the state $2 million in travel expenses), made a petty gesture this year by refusing to sign marksmanship certificates for citizens AND law enforcement, a gubernatorial tradition since 1903. The state's insurance commissioner has banned an NRA concealed carry insurance policy, calling it "murder insurance".
Attorney General Bob Ferguson takes the cake. When he is not trying to sue tax activists into bankruptcy (and denying them legal counsel in bankruptcy court) and grandstanding with a plethora of frivolous lawsuits against the federal government (wasting more tax dollars), he is acting against Washington citizens' interests by pestering lawmakers with misleading, professionally prepared (at whose cost?) requests for magazine and gun bans. Here, he gives stink eye to gun rights activists who have the temerity to oppose his legislation.
Since initiative 1639 passed and Democrats gained more ground in the legislature there is the possibility that some or all of the following legislation will become law:
- Magazine bans above 10 or 15 rounds (despite the fact that this significantly reduces the ability of people to defend themselves with concealed carry guns or whatever guns they legally possess in their homes. There is some grandfathering of existing magazines, IF they are kept locked up and you have kept receipts for them for decades.
- New restrictions on concealed carry. At a time when many states have come to understand that people who get carry licenses are the last people we need to worry about and are REDUCING restrictions, Washington state is pointlessly going the other way. There is legislation being considered which would add new training requirements and even require certification with the specific guns people will carry. In a move adding insult to injury, the House version spitefully strikes out a reference to "the right to bear arms".
- A ban on the sale of "assault weapons", semiautomatics which the state will GRACIOUSLY allow us to keep if they are registered with law enforcement. Registration which could easily lead to confiscation in the future.
- Revoking state preemption, a law which prohibits cities and counties from creating laws stricter than state requirements. Preemption is a very important law which makes it easy for gun owners to comply with relevant laws without having a legal team research obscure statues in every city they want to visit or travel through.
- Banning the manufacture of undetectable or untraceable firearms. In effect, this creates a new ban on the currently legal home manufacture of firearms. Some analysis indicates this could ban many home firearm enhancements (e.g., trigger upgrades) of existing guns or ban new short barreled rifles, which have been legal given NFA compliance for a few years.
- Banning people under 21 from having exposure to lead ammunition...an obvious attempt to prevent young people from becoming shooters or even take safety classes
- Requiring gun owner liability insurance, presumably different from the kind the insurance commissioner just banned.
What is the point of all this legislation? Washington state has a violent crime rate significantly lower than the national average, significantly lower than states with stricter gun laws. The only explanation which makes sense is that most of the state Democratic party wants to enact as much gun control as they can as fast as they can and citizen's rights be damned. The net effect if I1639 and all these laws is to drive gun owners into a minefield of new restrictions which they can easily and unintentionally violate. The danger in this tactic cannot be overemphasized.
That is why the last couple weeks have seen rush of county sheriffs announce that they will not enforce 1639 (or will not actively enforce it). There are parts of 1639 that are obviously unconstitutional (e.g., a storage requirement which conflicts with the US Supreme Court Heller decision), parts which are almost certainly unconstitutional (21 year age requirement, training requirement for purchase) and there are also lawsuits in the works because the format and content of the initiative clearly violate state law.
We hope that sheriffs in other counties will hold to their oaths to defend the state and or federal constitution because otherwise all this legislation is going to put them and the citizens into some very uncomfortable situations.
Are sheriffs in rural counties like Snohomish and Skagit counties really willing to confront armed citizens for safely exercising a right as they have for decades?
Are they going to stake out shooting ranges or gravel pits and demand to inspect peoples' magazines to determine their capacity? Are they going to arrest people who take their 18 year old shooting safely or attempt to confiscate their firearms?
Do these sheriffs have the resources ($$ and staff) to devote to certifying people who come in to renew or apply for a concealed pistol license and track the firearms certified?
ALL of these proposals are unnecessary and can only serve to further infuriate some very peaceful people who have been ignoring insults and abuse for far too long already...and lead to many unpleasant situations that upset the natural alliance between law enforcement officers and the citizens they are meant to serve.
N.B. Opportunistic prosecutors trying to convict people who break any of these rules will find it hard getting juries to support them.
N.B. Opportunistic prosecutors trying to convict people who break any of these rules will find it hard getting juries to support them.
