Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2019 11:09 a.m.

    The tide has turned with the NRA out of the picture due to investigation of Russian money.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 2, 2019 11:00 a.m.

    I have an M1 Carbine. IT is a semi-automatic rifle from WWII. I tracked the serial number and it was actually used in Europe during the war. .30 Caliber.

    By the liberal definition, it would be an "assult rifle". Even though it looks as benign as your basic .22 semi-auto.

    It isn't full auto and doesn't have that capability, yet it actually was a military weapon. Just like the larger M1 Garand rifle.

    So, mine isn't an assault rifle, yet I have 30 round magazines. And I have 15 round magazines also.

    Not sure why this is such a big deal. IT is the person that uses the firearm that is a fault. Not the firearm. It is just a tool.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    Jan. 2, 2019 9:51 a.m.

    @Fullypresent We are not talking about military grade assault rifles such as the M-16 or the M-4 or similar military grade assault rifles capable of firing in full-auto or burst mode. The weapons being discussed here are semi-automatic firearms that fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. Weapons such as the civiliain grade AR-15 (AR stands for Armalite Rifle Co, not assault rifle), the Ruger Ranch (aka the mini-14) and civilian model AK variants.
    None of these weapons are carried by the military. They are not killing machines. They are Semi-automatic weapons cosmetically similar to military grade weapons but functionally different.
    The Semi-automatic action is over 100 years old having been introduced in 1903. Federal law states you have to be 18 to purchase a long gun, 21 to purchase a handgun. From a licensed dealer. Washington state can impose stricter age limits. However this is being challenged in the courts, and several law enforcement agencies within the state have said they refuse to enforce this law. As they don't find that it passes constitutional muster.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Jan. 2, 2019 9:39 a.m.

    Record numbers of "assault rifles" were sold in Washington in December of 2018, many to young people under 21! Backlash?

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    Jan. 2, 2019 7:54 a.m.

    In this country we tell 18 year olds they are old enough to sign up to possibly loose their lives in the military - make life and death decisions on the battle field - but these same people aren't responsible enough to decide if they can have a beer. And then many care rental companies think renting to someone under 25 is a high risk transaction. The inconsistencies abound.

    So with that as context, is it reasonable to think that maybe 18 year olds shouldn't be buying guns with high magazine capacities and rates of fire? Just not sure what the right answer is. Raise the voting and enlisting ages? Lower the drinking age? There is no consistency.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2019 6:21 p.m.

    An excellent policy that will save many lives.

  • WallE Walla Walla, WA
    Jan. 1, 2019 6:17 p.m.

    @ NoNamesAccepted: My comment about arbitrary laws refers to the new law in Washinton State limiting 21 year olds from purchasing assault rifles. It is an arbitrary law as there are some who are much younger who we can trust as a society with the responsibility and other who are much older who we can't trust. But since the discussion goes to the extreme when its initiated we are limited to arbitrary laws to at least do something.

    Your response pushing my comment out of context to an extreme is a case in point; until we can have a reasonable discussion we will end up with arbitrary solutions regardless if there is something better.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2019 5:51 p.m.

    The real question is why does anyone need an assault rifle other than the military or the police. A lot of other people may want them but they do not need them and shouldn't have one. The NRA has convinced far too many people they need one when they don't. They are killing machines that should be limited to a select few.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 1, 2019 3:18 p.m.

    @NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UT
    Jan. 1, 2019 12:49 p.m.
    How does one define a so-called "semi-automatic assault rifle"?
    I wonder how many supporters of this law can name any functional differences between the Mini-14 rifles and the AR-15 rifles. There are certain major cosmetic differences. One rifle has a wooden stock and looks like a hunting rifle. The other has more plastic, raised sights, and looks like something from a war movie. But functionally?
    For that matter, a Ruger 10-22 shares some key functional features with both the Mini-14 and the AR-15."

    You can't. I've owned/have a Mini 14 and a Mini 30 (7.62) as well as a 10/22. For a few bucks you can buy aftermarket 50 round mags, polymer folding stocks, bi-pods, flash suppressors, and all kinds of accessories to turn a varmint rifle or plinker into an "assault rifle". You'd have to eliminate the ownership, sale, purchase and manufacturing of all the above, with mandatory jail time, to stop someone from taking a legit hunting rifle and turning it into an assault style weapon.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Jan. 1, 2019 2:12 p.m.

    @ConservativeCommonTater:

    So you wish to impose background checks on my rights while opposing any kind of background or voter ID laws when it comes to voting? A guy who can't be trusted to own a gun can be trusted to help decide who should own a gun? As well as helping decide what to tax, at what rates, and how money should be spent?

    I will remind you that both Hitler and Trump came to power via lawful elections, ie voting.

    Hitler when on to commit quite a few murders....after disarming his citizens of course.

    Well, if you oppose background checks, civics tests, or ID laws for voting, let me ask whether your background check for me to exercise my rights is more comprehensive, less comprehensive, or about the same as you think proper to vet legal immigrants and claimed refugees?

    I also ask again since gun haters love to dodge this question: Having passed an extensive background check, is there any reason I should not be trusted to own and carry my firearms across State lines coast to coast? Should not my firearms license be recognized on the same terms as say any marriage license?

    I'm just looking for any degree of consistency from the other side.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2019 1:57 p.m.

    NoNamesAccepted

    "I'll accept the same background check to buy a gun as you will for voter registration."

    How many people have been killed by voting?

    As usual you bring in a straw man argument that is off topic and unrelated to the subject at hand.

    What's next? Something about Obama or Hillary?

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Jan. 1, 2019 12:58 p.m.

    @WallE: "Until we can have a discussion ... there will be arbitrary laws which are better than doing nothing."

    So do you believe that "stop and frisk" laws were "better than doing nothing"? Or do you believe that stop-and-frisk violates basic 4th amd protections against warrantless search-and-seizure?

    Stop-and-frisk laws were aimed specifically at keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. How do you feel about them?

    How about we enforce our laws already in place. In the last 20 years, 2.1 million gun sales were stopped with the Brady background check. 25% of these were false positives (ie rights denied unjustly). Fewer than 700 cases prosecuted.

    250,000 denied their rights. 700 prosecuted. Over 1.5 million criminals not prosecuted.

    Maybe we'd be better off keeping dangerous criminals locked up.

    @ConservativeCommonTater: "As the saying goes; "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.""

    I'll accept the same background check to buy a gun as you will for voter registration.

    And then having passed the background check, is there any reason I should not be allowed to carry my firearm coast-to-coast rather than being made a felon in Cali or NY?

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2019 12:55 p.m.

    Yes, by all means, let's make sure 12 year old's can buy assault style rifles, wouldn't want to infringe on their rights by any means would we.

    We need more in depth background checks on people applying for permits or the purchase of a firearm.

    As the saying goes; "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Jan. 1, 2019 12:49 p.m.

    How does one define a so-called "semi-automatic assault rifle"?

    I wonder how many supporters of this law can name any functional differences between the Mini-14 rifles and the AR-15 rifles. There are certain major cosmetic differences. One rifle has a wooden stock and looks like a hunting rifle. The other has more plastic, raised sights, and looks like something from a war movie. But functionally?

    For that matter, a Ruger 10-22 shares some key functional features with both the Mini-14 and the AR-15.

    Considering that all so-called "assault rifles" are used in about 2% all firearms-related crimes, even if it were possible to eliminate all of them, there would be no material affect on the rates of firearm-involved crimes.

    Of course, if we are going to restrict fundamental constitutional rights to those younger than 21, then it is time to raise the age for registering with selective service from 18 to 21. "Anyone old enough to fight and die for his country"... was the refrain for 18 year olds voting. Buying rifle or really any other firearm has been an individual right much longer than has universal suffrage.

  • WallE Walla Walla, WA
    Jan. 1, 2019 12:39 p.m.

    The sooner this Country has an honest discussion on gun responsibilities the better.

    It shouldn't be a problem for 12 year olds to have a semi-automatic weapon under the right conditions (responsible kid with responsible adult supervision etc). But there are a few 50 year olds that shouldn't have them under any condition. Until we can have a discussion that will result in keeping weapons out of the hands of the inappropriate few, there will be arbitrary laws which are better than doing nothing.