WA Bill Would Prevent Police from Acquiring, Using ‘Military Equipment’

Washington State Capitol Building, Olympia. It will son be a busy place.

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Legislation pre-filed by two urban Democrats in the Washington State House of Representatives would prohibit law enforcement agencies from acquiring or using “any military equipment,” but sharp-eyed gun rights activists are concerned about what the bill defines as “military equipment” and how this bill could be a camel’s nose under the tent to ultimately impact law-abiding private citizens.

It could also have national implications, as noted by KXLY News in Spokane, which reported, “After a year that included calls for changes in police tactics nationwide, the Washington legislature could consider a bill that would limit law enforcement officers from using controversial police tactics like chokeholds and tear gas… Spokane Police admitted to using tear gas on protesters in downtown Spokane in the wake of George Floyd’s death last summer.”

How House Bill 1054 is written has ignited a spirited discussion at the Washington 2021 Legislative Action Group’s Facebook page. Here’s why, Paragraph 2 in Section 5:

“For the purposes of this section, “military equipment” means firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, machine guns, silencers, armored vehicles, armed or armored helicopters, armed or armored drones, armed vessels, armed vehicles, armed aircraft, tanks, mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, long range acoustic hailing devices, rockets, rocket launchers, bayonets, grenades, grenade launchers, missiles, directed energy systems, and electromagnetic spectrum weapons.”

More than one participant has noted that a 12-gauge shotgun is greater than .50-caliber. Silencers are legally owned by a number of Evergreen State citizens who now wonder about future legislation to ban or heavily regulate “military equipment.” Also, many police agencies allow the use of AR15s as “patrol rifles” and the 12-gauge shotgun has been standard police equipment for generations.

Washington gun owners are all aware that Initiative 1639 defined—for the first time anywhere in the nation—a “semiautomatic assault rifle” as “any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.” This covers any self-loading rifle ever manufactured, even those chambered for the .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridge. There are no exceptions or exemptions. A Ruger 10/22, Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 or Browning SA-22 all fall within the definition. It took years for silencers to become legal and they don’t want to lose that through incremental legislation.

HB 1054 is sponsored by Reps. Jesse Johnson (D-30th District) and Debra Entenman (D-47th District). So far, the discussion at the Legislative Action groups Facebook Page has drawn more than 130 comments.

Opinions are mixed. While some respondents agree police shouldn’t be “militarized” with surplus equipment, others see this as a move to defang rather than defund police, who might be unable to quell riots with known non-lethal means, including tear gas. During the summer of 2020, following the death of George Floyd while in custody of Minneapolis police, Seattle and other cities experienced destructive protests. Police occasionally declared these protests to be riots.

One participant in the Legislative Action Group’s discussion observed, “It appears the writers did not take into account most less-lethal standoff munitions utilize the 40mm platform. As it reads, it sounds like beanbags will be banned, as stated above, a 12-gauge shotgun is over .50 cal. So, what are the options for the sword-wielding subject standing in a busy intersection? This is doing away with safe alternatives, and I feel we will be forced to utilize deadly force. As usual, the writers of these bills have never been in these situations, nor have they even once attempted to see how police operate. Knee jerk reactions get people hurt…”

Another man wrote, “More restrictions, more changing the definition of firearms and accessories. These changing descriptions is leading up to a major restriction in the possession of assault weapons, (any semiauto firearm) and military equipment. Look out if you don’t have your eyes wide open.”

Seattle-based gun prohibitionists have acknowledged the Evergreen State is considered a legislative petri dish where various gun control measures are tried before they are suggested elsewhere around the country. Might the same strategy now apply to how liberal politicians in other states will place further restrictions on law enforcement, making police less able to deal with criminal violence? Washington appears to be a state everyone watches, perhaps just to see how far the Far Left can push state policy.

Gun sales have already spiked because of public concerns about violent demonstrations while city governments have been at least partly defunding their police agencies. Continued gun sales might be one unintended consequence of this proposal, and perhaps migrations of police officers and sheriffs’ deputies out of the state could follow.

But is this the time for a discussion about curbing police militarization? Do municipal law enforcement agencies need armored personnel carriers? Have police forgotten they are civilian law enforcement, not soldiers and has the media helped exacerbate this misunderstanding by referring to private citizens as “civilians” when reporting on police activities?

Perhaps it is time to turn the heat up on what appears to be a simmering debate. As this debate unfolds in Washington’s 2021 legislative session, the public presumably will have the opportunity to weigh in.

The Washington Legislature is scheduled to convene on Monday, Jan. 11, 2021.



About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hoss
hoss
1 month ago

We dn’t have to worry about the cops having military equipment, when the police are de-funded these CRBs that supposedly represent us will be justified in doing away with Posse Comitatus, and will make a new law so the military will take the place of the cops, just like every other Commie Rat Bastard country in this world. In other words The New World Order will rule, and the Sheeple said okay as they bowed their knee.

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
1 month ago

How does this law make sure that they follow it? And just as “We the People” already possess items that were legal to own at one time are now illegal, are we just going to say we’ll never use them? Weapons escalate, it’s a cold hard fact.

TexDad
TexDad
1 month ago

Just glad they’re going to take care of our government-employee-bayonetting-citizens problem.

J Gibbons
J Gibbons
1 month ago

If the goal is to stop police departments from buying surplus military equipment, maybe that is ok. We all know the end-goal is total disarmament of all those who aren’t liberal elites, so I see this as an early step toward that goal. Suppressors should not be restricted. Semiautomatic firearms should not be restricted, regardless of caliber.

Matt in Oklahoma
Matt in Oklahoma
1 month ago

Before all you hateraid fanboys jump onto the bandwagon you’d better read it all especially the definition part or rather lack of.
Laws are made to benefit the politicians not The People

Stag
Stag
1 month ago

Good! No government agent should be more heavily armed than the citizens they serve.

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
1 month ago
Reply to  Stag

True, as far as your statement goes… but there is a corollary: No citizen should be less heavily armed than (any level of) the government.

Superman
Superman
1 month ago

‘Do LEO’s need armored personnel carriers’? Dave, Seattle PD uses one in their bomb disposal unit and the SWAT team uses one. So you want officers placing a bomb ready to go off in a patrol car instead of inside an empty armored vehicle? And you want SWAT stopped by Molotov cocktails thrown at patrol cars or do you want them to arrive safely in an armored vehicle? Do us all a favor and do some research. And by the way, the ONLY piece of military equipment I was issued in a 33+ year career in law enforcement in a… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago

I’ve got no problem with denying police use of military weapons and equipment – if – military is defined tools unavailable to the general public. 50 BMG, silencers, SBR, SBS, machine guns – all good. What it good for them is even better for us.

Terry
Terry
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

Odd none of the items you mentioned are Denied to the public………
But this would also Denny them items like non lethal crowd Dispersion items like their infrared heat Ray and long sound wave equipment which would have worked great in Seattle.

These legislators seem to want to give power to the mobs.

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
1 month ago
Reply to  Terry

Not “seem to,” the legislators DO want to empower mobs.

StreetSweeper
StreetSweeper
1 month ago

Daniel Shaver remains unavailable for comment.