So, I've been reading the bill text and I have a question.  

The bill states:

1) A person may not manufacture, possess, distribute, import, transfer, sell, offer for sale, purchase, or otherwise transfer a large capacity magazine except as specifically authorized.

Comment: this is the ban text. The bad part.

Then there is this exception.  The ban does not apply to the following:

2) any person who legally possessed the large capacity magazine prior to the effective date of this law;

Comment: This means the owners prior to the ban have their mags grandfathered to them and all the words in the ban text do not apply.  The original owner is not restricted by the ban, if they owned them legally. If they are not subject to the ban (item 1), then they should be able to sell, trade, transfer (i.e. give away), or "will" the magazines, to someone. Correct?

AND:

3) any person who inherits the large capacity magazine on the death of the former owner who legally possessed it;

Comment:  This is also an exemption to the ban.   This seems to verify my comment, to 2 above.

Here is the sticky wicket.  This might be saying that only the original owner has this exemption.  However, let's look at this case.

Say I "will" the magazine to my daughter or a friend.  And this happens after July 1st.  According to item 2 above, they would also have the exemption in item 3, according to the text. That text exempts them from the ban.

My Logic:
* I own it legally, prior to July 1st.
* I pass away, and "will" it to someone.  Allowed by implication in #3. I legally possessed it prior to July 1st.
* The person I "will" it to, got it legally. They got it by legal "will".  And item 3 says the ban doesn't apply to them.  
* Therefore, if the ban doesn't apply to them, they too should be able to sell, transfer, "will" the magazine.
* The ban exempts original owner, AND people who in inherits a mag, if it was legally owned by the previous ower
* In the hyphthetical, that is the case.
* All the 2nd exemption does is void the ban to anyone who gets a pre-ban mag by willing

In the case of "selling" or "transfering" or "giving away" which would be legal, if the ban text doesn't apply to the original owner. But "willing" seems to be legal, over and over, as long as all the owners legally owned a high capacity mag.  However, if you were given or bought the mag from a legal owner, the exemptions don't apply to you, since you got it after July 1st.  "willing" has no comments about date of acquisition.  Only that it was legal, and the previous owner got it legally

I'm wonding if this is a loophole, bad reading of the text, or correct.  I can't find anything wrong, so far, with my logic.  

Comments.

High Capacity Ban Text

Update 2: I just saw this.

A person who legally possessed the large capacity magazine prior to the effective date of
this law, or other person who legally inherits a large capacity magazine must comply with
the following:

• the person must not sell or transfer the magazine to any other person in this state other
than a licensed dealer, federally licensed gunsmith for repair, or to a law enforcement
agency for permanent relinquishment; and

• the person must possess the large capacity magazine only on property owned or
controlled by the person, at a licensed shooting range, during lawful outdoor
recreational activity such as hunting, and in transit to and from those locations
provided the large capacity magazine is stored unloaded and in a separate locked
container during transport

That still doesn't rule out "willing" unless willing is also transfering . That would still give my magazines approximately 80 more years, to including willing one time.  Then they could be sold to someone out of state. By then they should be ancient collector items. :)

It also looks like the high cap magazines can't be used for self-defense, unless attached at one of the places listed.

Question 2ish:  This would seem to say, if I go fishing or hiking, a lawful activity, I can't carry the magazines for self-defense purposes. Is that the way everyone reads it?

You want the mags you want ?  

Have ‘em.

Fuck anyone says you can’t.

Alas, I'm one of those who obeys the law, even if I don't like it.  I'm not at all worried about MY mags. Those are exempt. But I'd like to keep them in circulation, until they fall apart from wear and tear. :)

How do they know when you bought your mags? Just buy them privately or out of state. If they have date stamps, make sure the date is prior to enactment.

The law will be invalidated before any of us has the chance to even die, so don’t lose sleep over it.

Duncan v. Bonta is pending and won’t stand the new methodology.  Ninth Circuit will have the fastest mag ban reversal in the country.

I'm starting to have more confidence in this possibility.

Another option is to put your mags in a Firearms Trust.

Another confusing point

I see the grandfathering clause in the original SB5078, but NOT in the final bill.  And some people have been saying that it's ok to carry a high capacity for self-defense, if grandfathered.

But I can't find that anywhere in the final bill.  If anyone has a definitive WA passed bill that makes it clear, I'd like to read it.  Opinions from gun dealers isn't enough.

This is the text from the WA legislation bill tracking.  I don't see the grandfathering exception.

In the legislation I read, they require photo evidence.  Yes, that's what it said in the bill I read. But I haven't found the final bill text, that says any of this.

I'm more interested in real interpretation of the actual legislation, not conjectures.

They do not ban “possession” or use.  It’s by omission that it is grandfathered.

You can possess and use it. Nothing in the new law prohibits that.  After July 1, you can’t sell it, but new ones in the state, etc., etc.  If you have it before the ban, they make no attempt to restrict it’s use or your ownership of it. Only future acquisition.  There is nothing about proof or requiring you to do that.  If a case is brought, it would be up to the prosecuting authority to prove you acquired it in violation of the law.

This way they avoid potential lawsuits for unlawful taking.  

We have a family trust for a suppressor already, but I’m not bothering with tansferring mags into it because this thing will be gone faster than Charlie Sheen’s clothes in whorehouse.

You are correct. I just read where the legislature removed the restrictions on possession and where they can be used.  Therefore we can still possess, carry, and use.  My first post was first version. My last version of the bill shows possession removed.

And they dropped the photo proof, which would be hard to do.

Following laws practically requires a law degree.  Thanks for your clear explanation.

Thanks for the confirmation.

I was thinking of putting the mags in a trust, but then there might be an issue with "transferring", if trustees wanted to use them.  The trust owns them but the trustees might be hit with transferring to the individual, when used.  I'm sure I'm overthinking this, but I don't trust progressives, to do the right thing.

Sounds like mass noncompliance is what’s needed.

Yes,  ignore AG Turd Ferguson.  He ignores the laws he doesn't like