Washington A.G. to Lead Charge on Banning ‘Assault Weapons, High-Cap Mags’

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announcing his intent to ban "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines." (Photo: atg.wa.gov)

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announcing his intent to ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines.” (Photo: atg.wa.gov)

“Military-style weapons are designed for killing people,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said at a press conference this week. “These weapons have no place in civilian use.”

Ferguson, who is up for re-election, discussed his intent to work with state lawmakers to ban many widely popular and commonly owned firearms.

“The recent tragedy in Mukilteo drives home the need to act with urgency to end the availability of weapons designed with only one purpose — to kill people,” Ferguson said. “I have a duty to protect the public, as well as uphold the constitution. My proposal will ban some of the deadliest weapons, while respecting the Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

While Ferguson hasn’t yet drafted the legislation, he said he will use as a template the sweeping bans passed in Connecticut and New York following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.  And, according to a press release, the legislation will contain two key elements:

  • A ban on semiautomatic weapons with military-style features that render them more easily concealable or more deadly; and
  • A limit on magazine capacity — currently unlimited under Washington law — to a maximum of 10 rounds of ammunition.

“I do not propose bills that I do not think I can pass,” he said. “Will this be hard? You bet. Will the gun lobby engage on this issue? Absolutely.”

Ferguson said his ban will not be retroactive in that he won’t try to confiscate firearms already in the hands of law-abiding gun owners.  Those firearms will be grandfathered in.  Additionally, Ferguson said that he will not require gun owners to register those existing weapons.

This yet-to-be-drafted ban has garnered support from several high-ranking officials, including Gov. Jay Inslee and Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole.

“The governor has a record of supporting this type of thing,” Jaime Smith, a spokeswoman for the governor told The Seattle Times.  Inslee, a former Congressman, voted in favor of the federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” in 1994.

“The attorney general’s proposal is one of many things that we should all be looking at to reduce gun violence,” added Smith.

Likewise, O’Toole jumped behind the ban.

“Individuals should not have easy access to assault weapons,” O’Toole said. “This would be a wonderful prevention tool.”

Naturally, gun-rights advocates were quick to condemn the attorney general’s gun ban agenda.

Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, said in an email to GunsAmerica, “Unfortunately Washington state has an attorney general that attacks constitutional rights instead of defending them. He is bought and paid for by the gun prohibition lobby.”

Ferguson said he plans on introducing the ban in December.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 53 comments… add one }
  • mtman2 November 16, 2018, 8:18 am

    You know it\’s very true that any vehicle is far deadlier + in seconds then a nut that uses any gun.Yesiree guns are made to kill what is aimed at- stupid- that\’s the point.
    Esp in defence of persons from others that are a threat.
    \”Only a good guy with a gun\” that\’s us \”stops a bad guy with a gun.\”
    This as Thomas Jefferson states includes tyrannical gov usurpers.\”LEO\’s are only minutes away when seconds count.\”He says no registration now but it will be next once set up = then confiscation always eventually follows-!
    * Both are totally unConstitutional, unAmerican and unacceptable…

  • GI Joe November 14, 2017, 2:23 pm

    Most politicians shouldn’t worry about gun control. Like Hillary, the only people they want armed are their bodyguards. While the World revolts against Trump, he shows the biased media for their true color…Red. I love Trump, because I’m sick of both Democrats and Republicans…and they’re just too slow witted to realize…he ain’t either one👍 I gotta a machine shop here, anything they ban…we can manufacture! And there’s more where I come from.

    Congress…passes Obama Care, then they vote to exclude themselves from it! First Thing They Did!
    Hillary the billionaire…the ONLY Charitable Organization she donated money to? The Clinton Foundation… Reward yourself and take it off your tayes. Always looking to pay your fair share, darlin? Crooks, 90% minimum…

  • xLoCxRambo February 27, 2017, 10:40 am

    So sick of fear mongers that do not understand that these military features actually make things safer!!!!!! I’ve held old fashion “Woody’s” and regular “EVIL BLACK RIFLES” and found it much easier to hold, carry, use, and transport. Also by the way anyone who CONCEALS a rifle is already intent on breaking a law!!! So the fact you would try to make something that is already illegal even more illegal is even more useless than holding a metal rod in a lightning storm. If you want to help prevent gun murder than put the money you are wasting on a bill toward increasing funds for law enforcement and emergency responders!!!!!! Hell even put it toward the education system to help nourish minds in understanding to better themselves so that they don’t stay trapped in the continuous cycle of violence against others that some environments breed!!!!
    -Steps off soap box

  • Just1Spark January 27, 2017, 8:10 am

    Keep giving the govt power, and it’ll keep using it.

  • Lon January 27, 2017, 7:12 am

    OK idiot, police are civilians, you going to disarm them too? How about your security detail? Why do they have guns if not to shoot people? Typical leftist hypocrite.

    • mr munchie January 29, 2017, 11:37 pm

      Well said! That was my first thought, too. The 2nd amendment is not to ensure that we can go duck hunting. It’s to provide an armed population to defend against tyrannical governments (enemy foreign or domestic). That is why the left hates the constitution, it’s a hindrance to their elitist attempts to take freedom from “we the people”.

      • Batman February 19, 2018, 4:23 pm

        Your delusional – you have no rights, you have privileges and your government can take em away anytime they see fit. There hasn’t been a truly “we the people” since before the Federal reserve was enacted at the start of the, 20th century. The Banking cartels of this world own all of us.

        • mtman2 November 16, 2018, 8:02 am

          A yup – just wrote a post semi outlining the dots on this in the LE shooting article…

  • Daniel Galbreath January 27, 2017, 5:12 am

    Modern sporting rifle sales, magazines and ammunition for those weapons are going to skyrocket in Washingtonia now. Thanks Bob!!!

  • Edward Rambo September 19, 2016, 12:49 pm

    What gives these high and mighty BUTTHEADS the right to go against our Constitution just because they don’t like something? How would they like it if we turned around and banned something that they like, just because we don’t like it, between the ones that like guns, and the ones that don’t, they have blown it way out of proportion, to the point that we can’t believe, or trust any of them. We have enough gun laws on the books now and most of them aren’t worth the paper they are written on we need to do more about the Criminals that get guns, and not the people that have a legal right to have them, and until you do something about them leave us alone, do you really think that a Criminal goes down to the local gun store and buys a gun? NO if you do then you are either not very well informed or your just plain STUPID, and if you really look at the statistics on people shot with AR type rifles you will find that far more are shot with pistols and other types of rifles and shotguns than any other type of your so called Assault rifles, and as far as I’m concerned anyone that tries to force people to their way of thinking is nothing more than a Communist, or a DemoCrap, which by the way is how they look at things as they are all about CONTROL, just look at what they have done to California, Illinois, New York, to name a few, they have the highest crime, taxes, and debt, but they do think they have total control while the City, or State is in chaos. One other thing you might want to keep in mind is if they ban one gun they will start banning more, and that is a very real fact about this Government. I have no respect for anyone that don’t respect our Constitution…

    • Michael Smith September 24, 2016, 2:55 am

      They don’t have a right. They should be charged with treason and shot.

      • Rick January 27, 2017, 7:01 am

        Right On !

      • GI Joe November 14, 2017, 2:28 pm

        Only problem is… they aren’t worth the cost of a 9mm bullet.

  • DaveGinOly September 16, 2016, 11:12 pm

    “I have a duty to protect the public, as well as uphold the constitution. My proposal will ban some of the most misguided and unreliable newspapers, while respecting the First Amendment right to a free press.”
    “I have a duty to protect the public, as well as uphold the constitution. My proposal will ban some of the most misguided and heretical religions, while respecting the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.”

    Would anyone ever swallow either of those statements? Yet an unfortunate number of Americans (and a majority of American news media) believe the government can restrict access to guns, ammunition, and other necessaries, and not infringe upon the right to arms.

    • DevL September 18, 2016, 12:10 am

      This is one truly of the most sane and intelligent comments I’ve seen on any GunsAmerica post. Usually I’m laughing or shaking my head at the sheer idiocy put on display at times. Thank you for a breath of fresh air.

      • mtman2 November 16, 2018, 8:37 am

        Yes well all the rational parallels should + could be used daily nationwide to cause pause to think.As I pointed to above any vehicle is an instant tool of mass murder at anytime most any place- yet ignored by politico\’s+media to point out.
        Which proves guns \”safety\” is not about safety but eventual total control period…

    • Briley February 23, 2018, 12:43 pm

      I think the Progressives/liberals/Democrats would like to ban all the conservative pundits, websites and Fox News, so, yes, some would go for it.

  • Daniel Flowers September 16, 2016, 9:04 pm

    Gonna sell a lot of ARs between now and Christmas.

  • Patriot September 16, 2016, 7:32 pm

    The Washington State Attorney Generals Office must be a shameless idiot organization controlled by a corrupt Democrat idiot such as AG Bob Ferguson to try to destroy the protection and other aspects of the Second Amendment and practically make the lives of good American people defenseless to aggression by people armed with any type of weapon. People against the protections of the Second Amendment, such as Ferguson, should not be elected or re-elected. He feels that he is more intelligent than the millions of people in Washington State and that he has the right to tell the people they do not need the protection of the Second Amendment. The people of Washington State should stand up and VOTE FERGUSON OUT OF OFFICE. Even better, also VOTE INSLEE AND O’TOOLE OUT OF OFFICE. Be represented by Americans who defend the Constitution that a tremendous number of soldiers have died to save so Americans would have the freedoms listed in the Document.

    AG Bob Ferguson should completely abandon the idiot nonsense he has proposed and let Americans defend themselves from robberies, rapes, killings, dope heads needing money, and terrorists.

    This shows how corrupt and biased the Democrat network news media usually is on liberal political matters, such as the idiot nonsense proclamation by Democrat AG Bob Ferguson that is intended for more gun control. As usual, there was no objection from the Democrat network news media and that is because the media supports Hillary and idiot Democrats. The Democrat network news media and Hillary, Billy, Chelsea supporters, such as Obama, Tim Kaine, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole, Gov. Brown of California, Gov. Brown of Oregon, Michael Bloomberg, Soros who owns Progressive insurance, Schumer, Katie Couric, Rupert Murdoch, Susan Collins, Maura Healey, Harry Reid, Dan Gross who leads the “Brady Bunch” have something in common and it is the fact that all are ROTTEN TO THE CORE !!!!

    • Briley February 23, 2018, 1:12 pm

      I am a life-long Washingtonian. This used to be a great state but it no longer falls into that category thanks to the enclave of progressive thinking, naive voters in and around Seattle…and the ag industry has pretty much eliminated hunting so a gun for hunting is not preeminent in the minds of kids today. Hell, in my day the usual present on an 18th birthday or 18th Christmas was a new 870 or Mossberg 500 and a dozen decoys. In those days we could hunt alone when we turned 14! I remember many days walking to the ponds well before daylight with a sack of decoy over my shoulder and my old springer spaniel in tow, and a cop seeing me and asking where I was going hunting and wishing me good luck – I wish he had offered me a ride to the ponds instead of good luck. Those were great times but even then the idiots were starting to show their ugly side and, after a rare shooting somewhere on the West side, decided to implement an ammo registration scheme. That lasted two years and they dumped it as useless and a waste of money. I am sure you guys have read about the Seattle gun and ammo tax and how well it is doing. You can bet the idiots, which, of course, Ferguson and Inslee are the the biggest, will eventually shoot for the whole state to be taxed on guns and ammo in the name of gun violence studies by leftist colleges and organizations One more time, Washington used to be a great state so watch out Idaho, they’ll be coming after you, too.

  • Kivaari September 16, 2016, 7:29 pm

    The best thing I ever got out of Washington was myself and a WA state pension. Idaho is much more gun friendly.

    • Daniel Galbreath January 27, 2017, 5:15 am

      +1. I love my Idaho home.

  • George September 16, 2016, 6:49 pm

    Fight this guys
    Fight it tooth and nail.
    I’m in California and we should be a warning to you all. Find a strong candidate to run against this AG of yours
    Put him on the defensive and run him out of office as a warning to any other politician who would try to take away your Second Amendment rights
    In California the legislators bought off the Police with exemptions. They bought off the Cowboy shooters by exempting single-action pistols and with gun owners divided, they conquered.
    Stick together and remember that an assault on one group’s gun rights is an assault on ALL of your gun rights.


  • JAMES HOOVER September 16, 2016, 5:09 pm

    These folks need to get their facts straight. Christian well said maybe you should replace the egghead AG . Can’t believe these folks ?

  • Cheatin September 16, 2016, 12:40 pm

    Ban Ban Ban
    Thats all legislators can come up with these days.

    Remember, your not a real legislator until you have a law with your name on it.
    And new laws are just more restictions on personal freedoms.
    It’s a tough job for legislators. All the good laws where made a century ago. Now they just
    Ban Ban Ban

  • Dennis Heryford September 16, 2016, 12:32 pm

    Ferguson and our state politicos have been trying to take our guns from us for quite some time here in Washington state. They’ve tried to wholly separate our guns from us, tried to restrict our ammo purchases, tried to restrict our reloading capabilities, tried to choke out our online purchasing of parts, ammo, reloading supplies, tried to tax us and the industry out of business, etc. and have been beat up over it in the past yet, they keep coming back for more like a deranged, hungry black bear at an open dump. I recently saved and subsequently resurrected an old 870 from a sure melt down. I had one identical to it before and used it to hunt grouse, quail and duck around here in our mighty fine Washington State. But this particular one needed some TLC. I had it laying around forever and a day. It was given to me more than 30 years ago. It was a standard ol’ Remington 870 with an extended tube and no sights. I was told it was purchased at an auction. I ran the numbers when I got it and voila, it wasn’t stolen. Unfortunately, the slide was stuck midway and wouldn’t budge, the forestock was cracked, the butt stock was scraped, worn and ugly as sin and the bluing was, well… spotty at best. It sat in my closet for at least 30 years. I’m retired now and was bored out of my mind one day so I thought I’d tinker on it. What did I have to lose. After much work I finally removed the forestock from the shotgun, disassembled the gun and dove in. I worked on it for about a week (an hour here, an hour there) tinkering, testing, etc. and realized there were a couple of parts that most definitely needed to be replaced. I jumped online, ordered up the parts and had them within a week. While I was at it I purchased a “tactical” forestock and buttstock assembly for it because I had to replace the old, beat up wooden stocks. The buttstock assembly includes an adjustable stock, has a sling mount and here’s the worst part, hang on! it has a pistol grip and it’s flat black (synthetic)! YES, I BUCKLED AND BOUGHT A MORE MODERN STOCK!!! By the definition proposed in the legislation Ferguson is proposing and other politicos have proposed over the years this shotgun, because of it’s looks alone would be banned. Yet it’s still the same ol’ Remington 870 that I’ve had for over 30 years and someone else had for years before me. Other than some new replacement (stock) parts and including the bluing, the same faded and rubbed bluing the shotgun shoots the same rounds (well… steel shot now) and its modern day sells in stores, on the internet and at garage sales throughout our nation. Yet Ferguson and the other bleeding heart libs want to ban MINE because of its LOOKS! I use it for “plinking”, etc. and intend on using it for grouse and quail hunting soon. I’ll put a plug in the tube WDFW so don’t start whining about that. I’m legal. But back to the point. This is the same shotgun you can buy across the counter. The very fact that you can modify the weapon to “look different” does not make it an assault weapon. Personally, I really like the new stock and grip. It’s lighter, handles well and is easier to store. Same gun, different looks… same use. Get over it!

    Vote these gun grabbers out of our government! They have an agenda and it isn’t in our best interests! MOLON LABE!

  • Ralph Solli September 16, 2016, 12:17 pm

    Has anyone noticed that there is a conspiracy led by the country’s liberal Democratic AGs to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. It’s happening in MA., WA, Maryland, and other states run by the liberal left. The pattern is clear, instead of outright confiscation, they will make it impossible to own a firearm by finding ways to outlaw them by features or deeming them “unsafe and holding manufactures responsible for gun related crime or recklessness by their owners. Communism here in America, Home of the free! It can’t happen here! Really?

  • Chuck Kimberl September 16, 2016, 11:58 am

    There seems to be a never-ending supply of stupid libtards like Ferguson.

  • TimS September 16, 2016, 11:44 am

    I’d love to know how many criminals, that have committed crimes using a firearm, have been offered plea bargains that drop all weapons charges to get them to plea to something lesser. Here in Alaska, it is virtually every case. It would seem to me that committing a crime using a firearm has to be the easiest charge to prove. If they want tougher gun laws than make the ones we have now tougher on the people that deserve to lose their liberty. Leave the law-abiding citizens alone!

  • bobby September 16, 2016, 11:34 am

    the main point is hes up for reelection,hes screwed

  • paul crosley September 16, 2016, 10:40 am

    It has been estimated that all federal, state and, local “law enforcement” combined are outnumbered 400 to 1.
    A few years ago I heard a radio news program announce that the largest standing army in the world had just taken to the field. Over 7 million armed people. It was the opening day of deer season in Michigan!

  • Mike Stuhr September 16, 2016, 9:55 am

    Well now, lets see. If these hi-capacity guns are only for killing people why do the police and most govt agencies carry them?
    Maybe because they are good gear to have around when you need to defend yourself your family or your country?

  • Martin Watts September 16, 2016, 8:49 am

    When legislators are allowed to enact these types of regulations the door is opened wide for a complete and total firearm ban. ALL firearms are evolved from firearms which were first designed for MILITARY use to kill enemy combatants. The first use of gunpowder to propel a projectile in China was to kill people. The humble bolt action rifle which many of us use to hunt with was first designed for MILITARY USE to kill people. Even something that average people do not consider assault weapons were first used to kill people- the atlatl, sling and rock, long bow… These legislators are not stupid and understand this fact. We MUST stop them in their tracks NOW!! Or prepare to lose our hard-won freedoms and liberties

  • JJ357 September 16, 2016, 7:06 am

    I am so tired of these COWARDS, taking our RIGHTS piece by piece. You Tube Mary Bayer she is a DNC California Super Delegate. She says when Democrats say common sense reforms it really means we want ALL your guns, she says that’s what Hillary Clinton supports. CA did the same LIE then 5 years later the grandfathered in magazines were suddenly made illegal. Hopefully this jerk gets hit by a illegal immigrant driving on his state issued drivers license even though he can’t read English, you know like road signs.

    • GunFlint1 September 16, 2016, 9:02 am

      They can have all my Guns & Ammo…..One bullet at a time, Their a lot more of us then them, take a firm stand.

      • Dave Emery September 16, 2016, 3:30 pm

        GunFlint1: Amen. That’s the only way. Give ’em up and this ain’t the country our forefathers planned nor the one all our patriots died for. I won’t stand for one of the most important principals of our country dying in vain due to simple minded, altruistic, and naive stupidity. From now until November try to get those on the fence over to Trump. And always remember that the politicians all work for us: We the people. VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!!!!

  • RichardD September 16, 2016, 6:32 am

    I live in Washington State and I sure hope that this law or anything like it doesn’t pass. The only thing driving public support for gun control is the mass shootings. And almost all of those are caused by psycho shooter drugs, not assault weapons or high cap mags. Which the gun control politicians ignore because it exposes their false narrative. The German airline plot on these dangerous drugs killed as many people in one plane crash as most of the worst mass shootings in the US combined.

    • Shawn Wooley September 16, 2016, 8:30 am

      I also live in Washington State and I fear that if this passes not only isn’t an attack on the Second Amendment and on law-abiding citizens like ourselves which will accomplish nothing.

    • gary September 16, 2016, 11:00 am

      you are being taken over by Californians that can’t afford to live down there or run out by illegals.

  • Big Daddy September 16, 2016, 5:46 am

    Yes, assault weapons are designed for killing people. And some people need to be killed. Like say….anyone trying to kill me.

  • Don Richardson September 11, 2016, 7:21 pm

    Another moron collecting a big salary at taxpayer expense. Tis getting really scary to think about who is voting for what these days. The politicians in general seem to worry so much about having complete control of the common folk, and so much power for themselves. Government in this country sounds more and more like the governments that people ESCAPED from to come to America. If things keep going this direction, to whence can we escape?

    • randall slack September 16, 2016, 9:59 am

      We are going to have decide to be sheep or fight back that is the only choice they are leaving us!!
      Gun owners we need to get off our asses and start getting politically involved!!!

  • Christian September 10, 2016, 6:31 am

    Now, this is something I have to comment on and I am sorry for making this a very long comment, but I do believe that it is highly necessary here, although unfortunately anti-gun people and Attorney General Ferguson himself will obviously not read it. But I think they should, because it is a part of democracy of listening to the arguments from the other side as well.

    Now, at first Attorney General Ferguson reminds me a lot of Attorney General Maura Healey from Massachusetts. He is using the exact same arguments, like that “military style assault weapons” shall not be in civilian hands and that they are only designed for killing a huge number of people in a very short amount of time. Again, exactly this is what Attorney General Healey said two months ago, on July 20th. And again, these arguments are totally wrong, which I try to explain now from my point of view as good as possible.

    Now, what is an Assault rifle? An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle, that has first been designed by the Germans in World War 2, to fast attack enemy trenches, bunkers and other installations. The Sturmgewehr 43, later named Sturmgewehr (Stg in short) 44, is the very first assault rifle in human history. The idea to have infantry units being fast in conquering enemy entrenchments has already been created in the first world war, when Germany invited its units of “Storm Troopers” (German: Sturmtruppen). But the weapon technology wasn’t far enough at this time, to give them weapons good enough for the job these units have been designed for.

    Now, translated from German language, Sturmgewehr means “Storm Rifle”. They are never built in semi-automatic, nor are they reliable weapons when not being used in close quarters combat. Their high rate of fire empties a magazine in just a few seconds and they are mostly only good for giving suppressive fire. Therefore, they are not really meant to kill a huge number of people in a very short amount of time. For that you have to take a look at machineguns but they are mostly only capable during a defense, never for an assault, as they are too heavy for a soldier to be carried around or even fired, without being in a stable position. Therefore, the term “assault rifle” for semi-automatic weapons is completely wrong, no matter how they look on it. Even the infamous M249S, that came out this summer, is not a machinegun or an assault rifle, as it only fires semi-automatic. Many comments from Gunsamerica visitors, who are all for sure law-abiding gun owners, that know so much more about guns than I probably ever will, have stated this already for good.

    There have been shootings mentioned here again, which have nothing to do with these so called “assault rifles”. Virginia Tech and Charleston were both mass shootings where only pistols have been used. And during most, if not all, shootings the guns that have been used are illegally used, as the perpetrators mostly do not contain the right, under the current laws, to have these guns. Mostly, they received them from family members or other persons. So how can one make the argument that more gun laws and the ban of certain weapon types will make the communities safer? It is a false belief.

    Guns safe lives. To take them away from civilian hands is a dangerous act. Look at gun-free zones like Chicago, the hometown of President Obama. This city has the highest crime rate in the USA. Only guns can stop violence, assaults and even mass shootings. There is a story, which I wrote on Gunsamerica once but want to write again down here in this blog entry:

    I’m sure most of you, if not all, remember the Columbine High School Massacre in Littleton, a suburb of Denver, Colorado, on 20th April 1999. Two boys, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and one teacher before they committed suicide. By the way, no “assault rifle” has been used in this shooting and the boys received these guns from a female friend, Robyn K. Anderson, and they received a semi-automatic Tec-9 from Mark Manes, who sold it to them. All of the guns used in the massacre were therefore illegal, not to mention the two shotguns that have been sawn-off, making them illegal according to Colorado law. Anyway, one of the four girls that has been killed on that day, Cassie Bernall, left a stern message to us, which unfortunately hasn’t never been looked upon by many people but even has been confirmed by the police report. And I am not talking about her famous “She said yes” story.

    There is another part in this story that has with no doubt proven by the police that this really happened. She received a shot from Eric’s shotgun into the right side of her head, while hiding helpless under a table in the library, just like all the other students. When he pointed the muzzle at her head, she felt it and, while praying, tried to push the shotgun away with her right hand from her head, without even looking to Eric. She just knew that she only had one last chance, to push the gun away from her head. That was all she was able to do but at least it was something she could do. Unfortunately, she had no chance and became one of the 13 victims. But she was the only victim in the Columbine High School that at least tried to defend herself somehow but she was also the only victim that had one of the guns pointed at her at a pure point-blank range. This has been testified by the police investigation, because the tip of her right little finger has been blown away by the shot. Now, think about what Cassie could have done, if she would have had a gun herself. Or think about what the teachers could have done, if they would have at least had guns. I believe Columbine would have turned out different or maybe would not have happened at all, when the teachers or even the students would have been armed. And the same goes for all the other school shootings. Now, I know it is highly politically incorrect to say something like this, but having no guns at school while the bad guys will always have an illegal way to get their guns is, as we all can see in so many school shootings and shootings in general, not a good option.

    Attorney General Ferguson makes the exact same mistake by seeing the fault in guns only. But we have to look on this in a different way. Why young people suddenly go out and kill other people? Because they had access to guns? No. It is a long way down because no one is ever born like that. No one is being born as a terrorist either. It all relies on the society and families in which the people grew up. Guns are just the smallest part. Ex-FBI agent Mary Ellen O’Toole (not to be mistaken with Police Chief O’Toole in this video) has stated this herself in an ABC News Exclusive, which was about Columbine as Dylan Klebold’s mother issued a book in February this year, that she has never seen in her studies about the criminal brain that school shooters, or shooters in general, just snap one day and just go out to kill. It is a long way, proven by thousands of evidences from killers and researches from psychological experts. People in power, like Attorney General Ferguson, often rely on statistics, so I advise them to look at the statistics and researches that with no doubt tell us that no individual ever just goes out to shoot people and himself/herself because they’ve just snapped. Guns are not the root of the problem, but only the smallest leaf on the tree that has this root. In my belief, the root lies in the American society today and in mental illnesses. Most, if not all mass shooters, have a history of mental illnesses, criminal records, suicidal thoughts etc. Same goes for all other industrial countries that went through shootings, for example my country Germany. Guns were never the issue and will surely never be, no matter what kind of guns they are. Banning certain guns does not stop the shootings, it only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

    Attorney General Ferguson also stated that he supports the 2nd amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. But I don’t believe that he spoke the truth because if he supports the 2nd amendment, he would know what the 2nd amendment says:

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Now, Attorney General Ferguson states that even the Supreme Court says that the 2nd amendment is not without limits, as the court stated in District of Colombia vs. Heller in 2008 under point 2: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

    You know, I am saying the same as Hillary Clinton stated once: The Supreme Court is wrong about the 2nd amendment.

    How do I mean that? Not like Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court is in my belief wrong about the 2nd amendment because the 2nd amendment has no limits set at all in its words. Right now I still try to figure out how the Supreme Court was ever able to interpret that the 27 words of the 2nd amendment contain a statement, which says that this right is somehow limited. It is not limited at all, that is why it says “shall not be infringed”. Because as soon as you make the smallest limit, for example having only a 29-rounds magazine capacity instead of a 30-rounds magazine capacity, you infringe the 2nd amendment, not to mention what Attorney General Ferguson wants to do: Banning certain weapon types and forbidding the people to have magazines with more than 10 rounds. The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed. Period.

    By proposing these new laws, Attorney General Ferguson, as well as all the people that are supporting this act and who have spoken at the podium in this video, are walking against the constitution of the United States of America and shall be therefore taken out of office, especially Mayor Jennifer Gregerson. Sorry, Mrs. Gregerson, but you try to infringe the 2nd amendment, a part of the constitution all your work has to abide to, and therefore you shall have no political power anymore. Especially because you were talking at this podium as if you have known these victims personally. It makes me sick, sorry. This is nothing against you or any other of these people personally but the constitution is clear and the Supreme Court is, in my belief, wrong about the 2nd amendment as well because there are no limits and therefore a ban on certain weapon types or a magazine restriction are unconstitutional.

    When Mr. David … (sorry, I didn’t understand his family name clearly) of the 46th district, starts at minute 8:30 to speak, he mentioned a website where you, in his saying, can see that most of the American people support an “assault-rifles” ban. I do believe that he was referring to this poll:


    But from the numbers I can see there, it is clearly to me that it is not a majority that supports an assault-rifles ban. At all only 5% more prefer an assault rifles ban with a total number of 51% while the people against an assault rifles ban are right now at 46%. Shall we infringe the 2nd amendment just because of a 5% majority? And now look at the other numbers, that were brought up with the question if there shall be fewer or more guns to keep American citizens safe. 46% support fewer guns while 45% support more guns. So there is just one single percentage of difference. There are many other polls with different numbers of course and I just referred to the first two. That is why we always have to be careful about statistics and especially where and which people have been asked. No one can tell me, that these statistics are without some interest, especially if they come from universities:


    Most universities have ties to politics because they have to receive taxes to keep existing and therefore they are under the mercy of politicians. Maybe in the USA it is different but this is how the situation in my country, Germany, is and I believe that we are not very different in this matter. So what the man from the 46th district said is not really reliable at all.

    I am also sad to see that a pastor from a church is using the name of God, to speak against the right of self-defense. Someone has to remind Pastor Anderson what Jesus said in Matthew 26:52, which I now try to translate from German into English as good as possible for me:

    “Then Jesus said to him: “Put your sword into the scabbard; because all who take the sword will die by the sword.”

    By saying that an attacker, that took the sword in the first place, shall die by another sword, this clearly means that a bad guy with a gun can only be stopped by a good guy with a gun. Therefore, even Jesus, the son of God in Christian belief, supported a 2nd amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense, more than 2,000 years ago. So even from a religious standpoint there shall be no restrictions for people that want to defend themselves. And I am sad to see that a pastor, who is surely a good man personally, supports this wrong move of Attorney General Ferguson. Not to mention pastor Anderson’s words that his church had to install an expensive security camera system. But did anything happen in this church? Did anyone forced this church to buy and install a security camera system? No. This is unfortunately only some kind of false propaganda. Sorry Pastor Anderson, may God bless you too.

    I hope and pray for the American people, that the shootings will stop with reasonable fighting against criminality, poverty and mental illnesses. But I hope and pray that the 2nd amendment will never be touched again and I especially hope and pray that the democrats will suffer their defeat on 8th November 2016. If these enemies of the constitution of the USA will not have to leave their offices on that day and Hillary Clinton becomes the new president, this country might be doomed and its special freedom, which no people in any other country in this world have, will maybe end.

    What I have just written is all my personal opinions and beliefs into the whole matter. Thanks and my best greetings to you all. Christian, 27 years old, from Berlin, Germany.

    • DRAINO September 10, 2016, 1:05 pm

      Phew! That was a mouthful! But well said, Christian….well said! Thanks, Mr. Blannelberry. Good article. Keep educating people. Hopefully we can get this country turned around.

      • Christian September 10, 2016, 4:24 pm

        Hello Draino, yeah I know it is much (took me 2 hours to write and collect all the links), so, again sorry about that, but I think there are so many good reasons for not following these 2nd amendment enemies and someone just had to write many of them down. Unfortunately I cannot keep myself short and as soon as I start to write I just can’t stop. Thanks again and I also say thanks to Mr. Blannelberry for keeping us up to date, and I also say a very special thank you to the Gunsamerica administrator for actually having made my monster-posting public (I hope I didn’t took you too much time for checking everything)!

    • mtman2 November 16, 2018, 8:44 am

      You know it\’s very true that any vehicle is far deadlier + in seconds then a nut that uses any gun.Yesiree guns are made to kill what is aimed at- stupid- that\’s the point.
      Esp in defence of persons from others that are a threat.
      \”Only a good guy with a gun\” that\’s us \”stops a bad guy with a gun.\”
      This as Thomas Jefferson states includes tyrannical gov usurpers.\”LEO\’s are only minutes away when seconds count.\”He says no registration now but it will be next once set up = then confiscation always eventually follows-!
      * Both are totally unConstitutional, unAmerican and unacceptable…

    • mtman2 November 16, 2018, 8:58 am

      As stated in \”Right to bear\” indicating easily carried in the field on ones person= not bazookas but small arms, blades etc
      All local armory\”s can have explosive delivery systems for practice by local militias training on weekends when most citizen soldiers are not working to be returned to storage until if ever needed.

  • EWTHeckman September 9, 2016, 6:56 pm

    According to the 2nd Amendment, the purpose of protecting the right to keep and bear arms is so those arms can be used to defend a “free State”. Does Mr. Ferguson think game animals are a threat to a free country? Or how does he think freedom can be defended without killing people who are attempting to destroy that freedom through force?

    • DRAINO September 10, 2016, 10:34 am

      Again, with the “2A is for hunting” fallacy…ugh! These morons don’t think….they only use their “feelings”…..like all the other libtard democraps…..if they had any logical brain cells, things would be much different in our country at this moment. The 2A was definitely meant for us to protect ourselves from oppressors (=people), not from game animals.
      I also agree with Mr. Horn….if the civilians can’t have a certain type of weapon, then neither can the govt/law enforcement. That knife cuts both ways. This double standard crap has to be stopped in our country.

      • Charlie BROWN February 11, 2017, 9:53 am

        To make this much shorter and simple. The 2nd amendment is to stop, arrest,try and convict Ferguson of treason PERIOD

  • Tom Horn September 9, 2016, 6:49 pm

    “Military-style weapons are designed for killing people,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said at a press conference this week. “These weapons have no place in civilian use.”

    OK, fine. I believe everyone outside the military should be considered a, “civilian.” No more military-style weapons for the D.C. Police, none for the FBI, or Secret Service while in D.C. How would he like to live by his words? Firearms manufacturers should quit selling to any districts (cities, states, or the Federal Government) that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.

    • Scott September 16, 2016, 7:08 am

      U.S. Department of Defense, Chapter 18 of Title 10 United States Code refers to non-military law enforcement officers as civilians since they are employees rather than enlisted personnel, and also in order to distinguish itself from military police.

      Pull a Berrett on them, don’t sell or service law enforcement weapons that the general population can not own.
      LE sales are tiny portion of gun sales. The rest of us drive the innovation and pay for the companies to stay in buisness long enough to get gov contracts.

      These clowns do what they think they can get away with. Vote them out, send money to their rivals, send money to the NRA, educate and positively (politely) educate non-gun owners, teach youth to own and use guns responsibly and stock up on anything they hint at banning.

    • Dan Slocum January 29, 2017, 12:38 am

      Then, you should be giving three cheers to Ronnie Barrett of Barrett firearms. That’s exactly what he and his company did. A while back, the (sad) state of California banned Barrett’s .50 cal. semi-auto rifles from civilian possession. So, Mr. Barrett and company said, O.K. Fine. In that case, we will no longer sell our firearms to the state of CA, or to any law enforcement agency in that state, nor service any existing firearms for said agencies. Now, I haven’t followed subsequent events that closely, so I don’t know if Mr. Barrett’s prohibition is still in force. I hope so; perhaps another reader out there can enlighten us? The point is Ronnie Barrett took a stand. The state of Montana took a bold stand, also, when it said it would not assist the federal government in prosecuting anyone who sold a made in Montana firearm within that state without meeting certain federal laws and such. Again, I haven’t followed later events related to that move…maybe someone else has. But, the actions of Mr. Barrett and the state of MT both show that when people stand together and stand up to this sort of misguided and nefarious behavior on the part of big government, they can influence change. Just look at the number of states that have passed concealed carry laws in one form or another; or, castle doctrine, or stand-your-ground laws. It can be done – if we all stand together. If we don’t unite and work to rein in this runaway government encroachment upon our rights…well, as Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it: “If we do not hang together, we shall surely all hang separately.”

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend