Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 1/22/2021 9:02:49 AM EST
A well written and rather short article from Washington State's newest gun rights org:  The Washington Civil Rights Association

While not hot linked, there are lots of references at the bottom of the article for those who like to do "deep dives" into these matters.

Some key takeaways that might be useful when writing your electeds:

"By their own admission, most gun crime is not committed using standard capacity magazines. The bills also cite being “in the midst of a pandemic, economic recession, social tensions, and reckonings over racial justice” which are temporary circumstances, as justification for a permanent ban."

"In 2020 we saw an unprecedented year for gun sales, with record numbers of women, people of color, and LGBTQ people joining the gun-owning community[2][3]. This ban will disarm all of these groups of people, plus older people, disabled people, and smaller-framed people, who may especially need the extra capacity in defensive gun use due to multiple, larger, or stronger attackers."

"Of particular concern in these bills is the exemption for off-duty and retired police officers. To be clear, the second amendment applies to all law-abiding Americans regardless of their profession. These bills reinforce a “ruling class” who will enjoy rights above the rest of the population."

"In fact, here in Washington, the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, in a work group studying how to mitigate mass shootings, did not recommend a magazine ban or any other firearm legislation[1]. These experts concluded that mass shootings are largely caused by lapses in our mental health system, bullying, and lack of outreach and support networks."

For those interested, here is the 201 page report produced by the Mass Shootings Work Group.  WA Assn of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs MSWG Report

Get active.  Stay active.  Radiate the signal and remember:  NO ACTION IS TOO SMALL!!!  Every contribution counts!!!

Thank you.
Link Posted: 1/23/2021 12:48:14 AM EST
Thank you for continuing to fight for our rights. Your posts have motivated me to send a lot of emails to WA Politicians over the last few years. You are a great American and I owe you several drinks!
Link Posted: 1/23/2021 9:29:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cspappy:
Thank you for continuing to fight for our rights. Your posts have motivated me to send a lot of emails to WA Politicians over the last few years. You are a great American and I owe you several drinks!
View Quote


@cspappy Thank you for the kind words!  More importantly - thank you for taking action and staying in the fight!

We will never be able to rest.  That sucks, I know.  HOWEVER - we faced over TWO DOZEN anti-gun bills last session and only three passed.  All because everybody chipped in and made their voices heard loud and clear!

Keep that pressure up WAHTF!!  We can do it!!
Link Posted: 1/30/2021 7:06:49 AM EST
The disheartening thing is that most lawmakers already know that 30 round magazines for AR15's are the most common magazines in use..that is why they are targeting them.  If 20 round magazines were the most common ones, they would target 20 round magazines...same for 10 round magazines.

Law makers also know that Ar15's are used in a very, VERY low percentage of crimes..but, they don't care about logic.  

The FBI often uses the metric of crimes per 100,000 citizens to give an idea of a crime rate in a given area.  If we applied the same metric to AR15's (crimes committed using AR15's per 100,000 owned for example) the crime rate would be extremely low.

Perhaps a different way to approach this issue is that trying to limit magazine capacity is racist in that it would severely limit the ability of the poor, and those of color to defend themselves from gang bangers or other criminals.  

In a time when police are under increasing scrutiny for over use of force, it doesn't make sense to carve out special rights to give them access to more standard capacity magazines than the general public.  Why should police be entrusted with more deadly force options than the general public when the public is already trying to reign in the police powers?  Both groups should either have the same ability to own and use magazines of any capacity, or both groups should be subject to the same restrictions.

For those who say police "need" those high capacity magazines, then the bill should say that only the department the police work for can have higher capacity magazines than the general public.  Individual officers, or retired officers wouldn't have any special dispensation.  Any high capacity magazines would have to be owned by and stored at the department when not on scheduled duty shifts.  Officers would only be allowed to possess those items when they were on duty during their scheduled shift...none of the "we are on duty 24/7".
Link Posted: 2/1/2021 12:04:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Genin:For those who say police "need" those high capacity magazines,
View Quote


If the police require 30 round magazines, so do we.  If a cop requires (fill in the blank), so do we.  Sure a cop is more likely to run into needing something banned for us, but we still can be faced with the same problems and require the same protection.
Link Posted: 2/1/2021 10:05:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Genin:
The disheartening thing is that most lawmakers already know that 30 round magazines for AR15's are the most common magazines in use..that is why they are targeting them.  If 20 round magazines were the most common ones, they would target 20 round magazines...same for 10 round magazines.

Law makers also know that Ar15's are used in a very, VERY low percentage of crimes..but, they don't care about logic.  

The FBI often uses the metric of crimes per 100,000 citizens to give an idea of a crime rate in a given area.  If we applied the same metric to AR15's (crimes committed using AR15's per 100,000 owned for example) the crime rate would be extremely low.

Perhaps a different way to approach this issue is that trying to limit magazine capacity is racist in that it would severely limit the ability of the poor, and those of color to defend themselves from gang bangers or other criminals.  

In a time when police are under increasing scrutiny for over use of force, it doesn't make sense to carve out special rights to give them access to more standard capacity magazines than the general public.  Why should police be entrusted with more deadly force options than the general public when the public is already trying to reign in the police powers?  Both groups should either have the same ability to own and use magazines of any capacity, or both groups should be subject to the same restrictions.

For those who say police "need" those high capacity magazines, then the bill should say that only the department the police work for can have higher capacity magazines than the general public.  Individual officers, or retired officers wouldn't have any special dispensation.  Any high capacity magazines would have to be owned by and stored at the department when not on scheduled duty shifts.  Officers would only be allowed to possess those items when they were on duty during their scheduled shift...none of the "we are on duty 24/7".
View Quote


The magazine capacity issue is driven by those who fear the common people. The odd mass shooting every couple of years helps sell the "public safety myth". They no longer defend LEOs so that is out. The left has confirmed they do not give a shit about cops. This is about reducing the odds of a civil war.
Top Top