Here is the Washington State Alliance for Gun Responsibility agenda for 2019:

RESTRICT ACCESS TO HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES: High-capacity magazines make  shootings more deadly and allow shooters to fire more rounds, faster. Recent reviews of mass shootings showed that 50% involved high-capacity magazines and, in shootings where high-capacity magazines are used, more people are shot overall and more people die. Keeping high-capacity magazines away from people looking to cause harm would reduce risks and help limit the scope of mass shooting tragedies in Washington.

“Keeping high-capacity magazines away from people looking to cause harm”? If you know someone is looking to cause harm why are they not in a cell or getting psychological help? And how do they think they can determine this? What are the details of a law they think will accomplish this? Reviewing your social media history? Interviewing your friends and neighbors every time you want to buy a spare magazine?

If they were serious about wanting to “limit the scope of mass shootings tragedies” they would encourage the one thing known to work over 90% of the time. Since they will never suggest that you know they are lying when they say they want to “limit the scope of mass shooting tragedies”.

Joining the 27 states and the Distict [sic] of Columbia who require safety training for a
concealed pistol license;

This isn’t because there is a problem with people with CPLs being a hazard to public safety. We are already much less likely to shoot an innocent person than a police officer when confronted with a deadly force situation. This is about making it more expensive and difficult to get a CPL.

Updating our list of people prohibited from possession firearms to include additional
crimes that are indicators of future violence and individuals found incompetent to stand trial.

It isn’t good enough that convicted felons and domestic abusers are prohibited persons. They want to expand it to those convicted of “additional crimes that are indicators of future violence”. Misdemeanors which happened 40 years ago? Public intoxication 20 years ago?

For over 30 years, our local towns, cities, and counties
have been blocked from taking action to prevent gun violence own [sic] their own because
of the statewide preemption law. Local leaders are best positioned to know how best
to protect their communities.

They want to remove preemption. The crazy patchwork of laws that will be impossible to remember will make it a high risk adventure to travel across the county with a gun let alone across the state.

Today, we take steps to keep
our kids safe by making schools gun-free zones. It just makes sense to extend these
gun-free zones to child care and early learning centers.

They want more “gun-free zones”! It is the existing “gun-free zones” where something like 90% of the mass shooting occur. And they want to create more of them. This cannot be for any other reason than they want to make it more and more risky to own and carry a firearm. This is not about keeping “kids safe”.

Crime guns are a major problem and a
contributor to gun violence across our state. There are common-sense steps we can
take to keep crime guns off our streets and make our communities safer.

Allow the State Patrol to destroy confiscated crime guns, rather than require them
to auction or trade them.

This is almost baffling. One way to interpret this is that they believe that once a gun has been involved in a crime they think it is more likely to be used to commit a crime in the future. Don’t laugh! This is what some people believe (see also here).

Another way to interpret this is that they believe this is, in essence, a zero sum game. They may actually believe that every time a gun is destroyed that is one less gun in existence. This is, of course, not true. It just increases the market size for new guns. Is this what they really want?

Considering the usual lack of sophistication I don’t think this is the most likely thought process but they may think that raising the price, by decreasing the supply, of guns can be achieved this way. Increasing the price means that fewer people can afford them making it more unlikely people will exercise their rights. The problem with this line of thinking is that the number of “crime guns” is so small compared to the total new gun sales, less than 1%, that any change is in the noise.

Ensuring we are able to respond to new technology by closing loopholes that
currently allow sharing and downloading designs for untraceable weapons that can
be printed or manufactured anywhere.

They want to infringe on the First Amendment as well as the Second. Got it. That’s not going to work any better than the war on drugs. When law enforcement can’t keep high school dropout from getting illegal drugs from South America 24×7 via boats and airplanes there is no chance of keeping encrypted files from sneaking in from anywhere in the world at the speed of light.

Their goal is clear. In the short term they want to make gun ownership difficult, risky, and expensive. Long term they want to eliminate it.

We can’t out vote them. We have to stop them in the courts. They won’t stop unless we stop them. Help stop them.

So average New Jersey residents and veterans have the skill to safely fire 10 lethal rounds at a time in self defense, but if they fired 11 lethal rounds at a time without POST training it would create a dangerous situation? Am I understanding all of this correctly? And this law upheld by judicial apologetics is causing a reduction in violent crime in New Jersey, right?

Drew Rinella
December 6, 2018
Comment to New Jersey must have a stupidity force field
[Yes. Yes. And yes.

Any more questions?—Joe]

From pages 41 and 42 of the ruling in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc.; Blake Ellman; Alexander Dembrowski, Appellants v. Attorney General New Jersey; Superintendent New Jersey State Police on appeal from the United States district court
for the district of New Jersey (see also A Powerful Dissent Charges Judges Who Casually Uphold Magazine Restrictions With Disrespecting the Second Amendment and Third Circuit upholds NJ’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds.). “LCM” means “Large Capacity Magazine” which in this context is anything greater than 10 rounds. This is a decrease from the previous restriction on magazine capacity which was 15 rounds:

Plaintiffs assert that the Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it allows retired law enforcement officers to possess LCMs while prohibiting retired military members and ordinary citizens from doing so. N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:39-3(g), 2C:39-17. Plaintiffs have not shown that retired law enforcement officers are similarly situated to other New Jersey residents. Retired law enforcement officers have training and experience not possessed by the general public. Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 147 (holding that retired law enforcement officers “are not similarly situated to the general public with respect to the assault weapons and large-capacity magazines banned”). Police officers in New Jersey must participate in firearms and defensive tactics training, including mandatory range and classroom training, under a variety of simulated conditions. App. 144; see, e.g., App. 1361, 1369, 1368, 1383. Law enforcement officers are also tested on a periodic basis after initial qualification and must re-qualify twice a year and meet certain shooting proficiency requirements. App. 144-45; see App. 1322-410 (describing standards, requirements, and full courses for law enforcement firearms qualification). Retired law enforcement officers must also satisfy firearms qualification requirements. N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:39-6(l). Moreover, because the standard-issue weapon for many New Jersey law enforcement officers is a Glock 19 with a loaded fifteen round magazine, App. 116-17, these officers have experience carrying and using LCMs. Thus, law enforcement officers, both active and retired, have training and experience that distinguishes them from the general public.

Law enforcement officers are also different from members of the military. Unlike military personnel trained for the battlefield, law enforcement officers are trained for and have experience in addressing volatile situations in both public streets and closed spaces, and they operate in noncombat zones where the Constitution and other rules apply. App. 148-49. Even if some military members receive firearms training comparable to the training law enforcement officers receive, App. 140-41, the scope and nature of their training and experience are different, App. 141, 147-49.

For these reasons, retired law enforcement officers are not similarly situated to retired military personnel and ordinary citizens, and therefore their exemption from the LCM ban does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Also of note is that New Jersey residents have until Monday to get rid of all their magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds.

Interesting logic going on here. I didn’t know that people in New Jersey were so stupid that the difference between using a 10 round magazine and a 15 round magazine required so much training and experience. And that, furthermore, no matter how much training you had in the military to use magazines with capacities greater than 10 you still aren’t capability of using one once you set foot into New Jersey. It must be that New Jersey has some sort of naturally occurring “stupidity force field” where people become stupid and incompetent once they step across the state border into their political jurisdiction.

But it must be true. How else would legislators and judges dream up and insist everyone believe something so stupid as the above?