The bill has to go back to the house.
There are states that already restrict the AR Family including the AKs. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Washington state is using their law to write it's own. They don't ban it, they restrict it. And it holds up in the court system.
Washinton State had it passed by the house, the Governor supports it and the Senate (where it's going) has a majority in agreement already. It's not the thought that is troubling but the wording. In Colorado, we restrict the AR and our laws are very specific naming the "The AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of "Assault Rifle" and it's listed as "Restrict" not "Ban". Nuclear Weapons are not banned, they are, however, heavily restricted.
Oregon tried to pass a law that "Banned" the AR and used every stupid trigger word in the law. It looks like they were trying to get it thrown out.
Washington State finally took out the trigger words and used specifics and it passed the Senate and is currently on the Governors Desk who is progged to sign it into law. HB 1240 - 2023-24
You gunnutter MAGAts are the ones putting in the trigger words. No place in the HB1240 that was also approved by the Senate and sits on the Governors desk says anything about banning the "Assault Rifles" or even banning the semi auto rifles. If it did, it would bounce even in lower courts. But it's very specific pointing out the AR and it's Various Clones for restriction.
Here, let me help you out.
BANNING IS BAD, RESTICTION IS GOOD.
en.wikipedia.org
