[MOAMike]

Guys,
This is an extremely important piece of information that I received from a Republican Legislator who I know personally. It's frightening, so let's try and do something about this before it's too late!!!! Pass it on to every gun owner you know in WA. Send it to the NRA, GOA, and every other organization you know of. Call your legislator and tell them "Hell No!".

This is serious.
Mike

===============================


This is urgent, I was contacted this afternoon for help in spreading the word on this issue from a state lobbyist, on a scale from 1-10 this is a ten, remember that both houses are controlled in Olympia now by Democrats.

Some of you may know that I serve on a couple of Washington Sportsmen boards, and even as a hunter this issue concerns me. Let’s show support and unity and tell these elected officials that have no common sense no on the following issues. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

What: Hearing on firearms issues Tuesday January 25,2005

Where: Senate hearing Room 1 J.A. Cherberg Building Olympia Wa.

Time: 3:30PM



The following bills have a hearing on them:

· Fifty caliber ban of 2005 (S-0541.1)

· SB 5343 Regulating the sale of firearms at gun show and events (background checks on trading, selling, and requiring a federal firearms license, also a fee paid to the state patrol for the transaction)

· SB 5342 Encouraging safe storage of firearms ( owner can be prosecuted if a child (under16) gains access to a loaded firearm)

· Assault weapons ban of 2005 (S-0230.2) (I have been told this covers all semi-auto riffles, at this time it is not on the state website in detail) mini 14, Ruger 10-22, etc. matches this description which is used by hunters also.

I was also informed that they need bodies to show up to this hearing, it was put as one of the most anti gun movement biggest moves in over a decade in Washington. If you cannot attend please call 1-800-562-6000 and tell your legislator NO on these bills. We need to show support or these will pass and others to follow in future years. Do I need to say California, Canada, etc.

[abaddon]

I went to the Washington State Legislature's home page and searched for "firearms" under the find a bill search engine. Here's what I found

http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/billsearch.cfm?Searchterm=firearms

No mention of a .50 caliber ban or anything like an assault weapon ban. Can you give me any other means of verification? I can't make it to the meeting and I'm not going to call/write my state senator unless I have definite information. "Some guy on the internet told me..."

Regarding the "gun show loophole" bill and the safe ownership bill:

Washington Arms Collectors is the only gun show in Washington and they require background checks in order to become a member. Only members can buy firearms. Doesn't this make the bill meaningless or does the bill require a background check for each transaction?

The safe ownership bill seems to be a good one to me. It doesn't apply if it was locked up or if the gun was acquired through breaking and entering. If your kids aren't responsible around firearms and you still fail to lock them up then there should be penalties involved.

Jeff

[edited for clarity]

[MOAMike]

Dig a little deeper before you cast it off as BS........ Here's what you're looking for......

Washington Arms Collectors is the only gun show in Washington and they require background checks in order to become a member. Only members can buy firearms. Doesn't this make the bill meaningless or does the bill require a background check for each transaction?

If you read the actual bill, it states that ANYONE who sells or trades a firearm at a show (any show) MUST BE A LICENCED FIREARMS DEALER. That is very different than what is in place now. All you have to do to sell or trade a firearm there is to be a member, NOT an FFL Holder. Big difference.

And, read further at: http://www.leg.wa.gov/committees/storage/wcss/original/weekly%5Fsched%5F01%2D24%2D05%2Ehtm

It states: Judiciary

Senate Full Committee Senate Hearing Rm 1 1/25/05 3:30 pm TVW

J. A. Cherberg Building

Olympia, WA



Public Hearing:

1. SB 5131 - Revising provisions concerning possession of firearms by persons found not guilty by reason of insanity.

2. Sale of firearms at gun shows (S-0192.1).

3. Safe storage of firearms (S-0191.1).

4. Fifty caliber gun ban of 2005 (S-0541.1).

5. Assault weapons ban of 2005 (S-0230.2).

6. Renewing a concealed pistol license by members of the armed forces (S-0032.1).



Possible executive session on bills heard in committee. Other business.



Senate Full Committee Senate Hearing Rm 1 1/26/05 3:30 pm

J. A. Cherberg Building

Olympia, WA


I'll tell you this much, if you simply say that it's okay to legislate "safe keeping" laws and others, you have given them free reign to make other changes as they see fit. Someday you'll wake up and find your rights gone.

Mike

[pax]

abaddon ~

Oh, it's true all right. This came from Joe Waldron, of the Gun Owner's Action League.

I'll be at the meeting, and hope you will be too.

pax



GOAL Post 2005-3

<>

Legislative Update from Olympia 21 January 2005

<>

MAJOR ANTI-GUN BILLS FILED

HEARING SCHEDULED 25 JANUARY

MAXIMUM ATTENDANCE REQUESTED

Recall during the campaign period Democrat presidential candidate John
Kerry taking photo ops at a trap range in Wisconsin, receiving a shotgun
at a union rally in West Virginia and going goose hunting in Ohio? Or
all the talk in the newspaper op-ed pages by Democrats after the
election about reaching out to “red staters?”

Forget about it.

Several extremist gun control bills have been scheduled for a public
hearing ? even before bill numbers are assigned (thus preventing the
public from obtaining copies of the bills or referencing bill numbers
when calling their legislators). One bill will ban possession of
“assault weapons” in the state, with the definition of “assault weapon”
being much broader than the recently-expired Clinton gun ban. For
example, under the Washington bill, M1 carbines and Ruger Mini-14s would
be banned, as would any detachable magazine semi-auto or pump rifle or
shotgun with a SINGLE “military feature.” No more than 10 rounds may be
loaded in any magazine (even in your HOME) except at a recognized firing
range. Another bill bans rifles chambered for the .50 caliber Browning
machine gun cartridge (.50 BMG). Both bills will allow those who
currently possess such firearms to keep them (if you owned it BEFORE the
effective date) ? but ONLY after registering it with local police,
undergoing a background check (for an unspecified fee), renewing the
registration and background check ANNUALLY ? again for an unspecified
fee, and the best part: Law enforcement agencies are allowed to conduct
an annual inspection of your home to ensure you are “safely and
securely” storing the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle properly (no
definition of “safely and securely” is given). Assault weapons and .50
BMG rifles may only be possessed at home, at a range, or transporting
directly in between those locations. Under an “emergency clause,” the
laws take effect as soon as Governor Gregoire signs them.

That’s the quick and dirty explanation of the impact of the bills. As
soon as bill numbers are assigned and you can obtain copies from the
Legislative Web Site or the Bill Room, I will send another GOAL message.

The old “Whitney Graves” safe storage bill has been refiled as SB 5342
(Senator Kohl-Welles, D-36). If a child obtains your loaded firearm, you
may be found guilty of a gross misdemeanor and face a year in jail, even
if no harm resulted. Amazingly, if someone is harmed as a result of the
act, the prosecuting attorney is given explicit permission to DECLINE to
prosecute. This is bizarre!

SB 5343 (Senator Kohl-Welles, D-36) is the same old Washington Ceasefire
“gun show loophole” bill that’s been beating around for four years now.
It would require ALL firearms transferred at a gun show to be processed
by a licensed federal firearms dealer, subject to a background check,
with an unspecified fee to be charged by the state patrol (AND a fee to
be charged by the dealer, naturally). The definition of “gun show”
includes the parking lots and other curtilage areas of a gun show,
placing the burden of patrolling the parking lot on the gun show promoter.

SB 5344 (Senator Fairley, D-32) would make it a criminal offense to
possess a firearm inside the Legislative Building (capitol building) on
the state Capitol Campus. The Washington State Patrol would be required
to provide lock boxes or some other form of secure storage for
lawfully-carried pistols. This is the same provision that is in place
for court houses… that routinely refuse to accept firearms for safekeeping.

There have been a couple of pro-gun bills filed this week as well. SB
5167 (Hargrove, D-24) allows persons who lawfully possess suppressors
(silencers) to actually shoot with them, an act now prohibited by state
law. SB 5167 is not currently scheduled for a hearing. Another as-yet
unnumbered bill is one from Senator Pam Roach (R-31) that would extend
the validity of CPLs possessed by military members if they are deployed
out of state. Their 90-day clock on renewal would start upon their
return. That bill will be heard with the anti-gun bills on 25 January.

Bills have been filed in both the Senate (SB 5383) and House (HB 1213)
that would put a lower age limit on hunting license issuance, 10 years
of age. It would also limit attendance at the state-mandated hunter ed
courses to those aged 10 and over. Children younger than 10 could still
attend other firearms safety courses.

A public hearing on SBs 5131, 5342, 5343, 5344, the a/w ban, the .50 BMG
ban and the military CPL renewal bill will be held on Tuesday, 25
January in Senate Hearing Room 1, John A. Cherberg Senate Office
Building. The hearing runs from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. WE NEED AS MANY
PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO ATTEND THIS HEARING, and to sign in on the sign-in
sheet taking a “pro” (for) or “con” (against) position.

If you know of any pro-gun police officers or retired officers who might
be able to attend and speak against the anti-gun bills, it would help
immensely. Without doubt the “cop lobby” will speak in favor of the bills.

BILL STATUS:

Bill # Subject Sponsor Status

SB 5041 Sentencing range McCaslin (R-4) S. Jud.

SB 5131 Insanity finding/firearms Carrell (R-28) S.Jud.

SB 5167 Firearm suppressors Hargrove (D-24) S.Jud.

SB 5342 Safe storage of firearms Kohl-Welles (D-36) S.Jud.

SB 5343 Gun show loophole Kohl-Welles (D-36) S.Jud.

SB 5344 Capitol campus gun ban Fairley (D-32) S. Jud.

SB 5383 Juvenile hunting licenses Oke (R-26) S. NatRes

SB xxxx Assault weapon ban Kline (D-37) S. Jud.

SB xxxx .50 BMG rifle ban Kline (D-37) S. Jud.

SB xxxx deployed military CPL renewal Roach (R-31) S. Jud.

HB 1133 Public disclosure law Nixon (R-45) H. StatGov

HB 1213 Juvenile hunting licenses Clements (R-14) H.NatRes

HJM 4002 Manufacturer protection Curtis (R-18) H.Jud.

Key to abbreviations: S. = Senate, H. = House, HJM = House Joint
Memorial, Jud = Judiciary, CJ&J = Criminal Justice & Corrections,
Fish/Ecol = Fisheries, Ecology & Parks, JuvJust = Juvenile Justice, Educ
= Education, LocGov = Local Government, NatRes = Natural Resources; W&M
= Ways and Means

GOAL position on bills:

SB 5041 Neutral

SB 5131 Neutral

SB 5167 Support

SB 5342 Oppose

SB 5343 Oppose

SB 5344 Concerns

SB 5383 Concerns

a/w ban Oppose

.50 ban Oppose

mil. CPL Support

HB 1133 Neutral

HB 1213 Concerns

HJM 4002 Support

Note: Our position on bills may change as they are amended and move
through the process.

HEARINGS SCHEDULED:

Senate Judiciary 3:30 p.m. 25 Jan Senate Hearing Rm 1

Public testimony will be taken on seven gun bills, three of which don’t
even have bill numbers as this is being written. The bills are SBs 5131,
5342, 5343, 5344, the assault weapon ban, the .50 BMG rifle ban, and the
deployed military CPL renewal.

LEGISLATIVE HOT LINE: You may reach your Representatives and Senator by
calling the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Toll free!!! The
hearing impaired may obtain TDD access at 1-800-635-9993. Also toll free!!!

1-800-562-6000 TDD 1-800-635-9993

OTHER DATA: Copies of pending legislation (bills), legislative schedules
and other information are available on the legislature's web site at
"www.leg.wa.gov". It's available in two versions: text (.txt) file or
Acrobat (.pdf) file. The "Acrobat" version is preferred as it is easier
to read and is an exact copy of the hard copy format the legislators
use. You may download a free version of Adobe Acrobat from Adobe's web
site. You may also obtain hard copy bills, initiatives, etc, in the mail
from the Legislative Bill Room FREE OF CHARGE by calling 1-360-786-7573.
Copies of bills may also be ordered toll free by calling the Legislative
Hotline at (800) 562-6000. You may also hear floor and committee hearing
action live at http://www.tvw.org/ (you need "RealAudio" to do this,
available free at the TVW web site).

By reading the House and Senate "bill reports" (hbr, sbr) for each bill,
you can see how individual committee members voted. By reading the "roll
call" for each bill, you can see how the entire House or Senate voted on
any bill. The beauty of the web site is that ALL this information is
available, on line, to any citizen.

GET THE WORD OUT: If you want to subscribe to the GOAL Post by e-mail,
send a message to "jwaldron@halcyon.com". Please pass GOAL Post on to
anyone you believe may have an interest in protecting our rights. Better
yet, make a couple of copies of this message, post it on your gun club’s
bulletin board, and leave copies with your local gun shop(s). PERMISSION
IS HEREBY GRANTED TO DUPLICATE OR REDISTRIBUTE GOAL POST PROVIDED IT IS
REPRODUCED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT TEXTUAL MODIFICATION AND CREDIT IS
GIVEN TO GOAL. I can be reached at "jwaldron@halcyon.com" or (during
session) by telephone at (425) 454-4915. Unfortunately, I am unable to
mail hard copy GOAL Post to individuals. Limited numbers of hard copies
MAY be available at WAC gun shows.

Upcoming WAC gun show(s):

<>
Puyallup 5-6 February

Monroe 12-13 February

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself,
or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall
be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize,
maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Article 1, Section 24

Constitution of the State of Washington

Copyright 2005 Gun Owners Action League of WA

[abaddon]

Like I said, I can't make the meeting but I'll be writing a letter tomorrow.

Jeff

[pax]

Everyone ~


If you live in Washington, and there's any way at all you can be at the hearing ... please do come.

***

Jeff ~

Writing is a good idea. :) Writing and calling -- even better.

I figure part of the reason they are rushing this through is because they figure the last-minute crush is going to keep gun owners away. Not to mention SHOT Show next week taking a good portion of the attention of everyone in the industry.

Washington Arms Collectors is the only gun show in Washington ...
Just so you know -- it's not.

pax

[abaddon]

Make that call and write.

Just so I don't sound stupid, though, does anyone have any statistics about the fact that assault weapons are almost never used in crime? Washington Cease Fire (http://www.washingtonceasefire.org/lobbygroup.asp) has a "fact sheet" on their website that throws out a bunch of Brady Center statistics. :banghead:
I won't have time to do much research before the meeting so if someone has it handy that would be great.

Jeff

PS: Pax, what's the other gun show?

[carnaby]

Damn! If this was not Tuesday I could make it. I wrote the following to my three dem legislators

I've just become aware that the state legislature is considering a new assault weapons ban. I find this to be highly disconcerting. I am an avid shooting sports member and I strongly support the second amendment of the united states constitution. Of course, the purpose of the second amendment has nothing to do whatsoever with hunting and sporting. It is primarily there to safeguard each individual American's right to arms in defense of liberty from the tyranny of the state or any other potential oppressor.

As such, the types of weapons with "military features" that are being considered in the ban are exactly the types of arms the Framers intended to protect. Contrary to the notions of gun-control groups like the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center, these types of weapons are used in an insignificant number of crimes compared to other types of weapons. The United States Department of Justice and the FBI have both made this very clear. The recently expired federal ban on so-called assault weapons had no impact whatsoever on crime, but did infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.

Most pro gun-rights citizens recognize these types of bans, which are primarily cosmetic with little plausible potential impact on crime, as another step down the slippery slope that inevitably leads to total gun confiscation, as was the case in England.

As your constituent, I ask that you please act against any gun-control measures that involve banning certain types of firearms or include gun registration. It is no surprise that the states with the most criminal violence (NY, NJ, IL, CA) also have the most gun control. Gun control does not work, and only disarms the law abiding majority among us.

I am fully in favor of extremely tough laws and sentences for criminal use of firearms. The record has shown that tough laws, sentences, and strong enforcement of these laws is the best deterrent to gun violence. Additionally, before any mention of the DC snipers, the fact that they used a so-called "assault weapon" was preferable to them using my grandpa's old .30-06 hunting rifle, which is much more powerful, accurate at long range, and cheaper than the Bushmaster rifle used by the criminals. The three people who survived the attacks probably would not have, had the snipers used a proper hunting rifle.

Sincerely,

I doubt it will help, considering the county I'm in, but there it is.

A couple questions... if they try to move this bill forward, will there be more public hearings and the like? Under current state law, are CCW holders allowed to bring their concealed handguns into the legislature or wherever it is that they hold these public meetings?

If there is another hearing, maybe some of us Seattle residents could carpool together, it's quite a trip, and I need to take the time off work to go.

:fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss:

[pax]

Jeff ~

Collectors West (I think they're the same people who put on the Rose City shows in Portland). There's one fairly often at the SW Washington Fairgrounds in Chehalis/Centralia.

Carnaby ~

Good letter.

pax

[mbs357]

Wow, good luck to you Washingtons...
Where is that survey that concluded less than 1% of criminals got their guns from gun shows? I could really use this lately. Darn antis I choose to hang out with. *sigh*

[abaddon]

Wrote a letter to Jim Kastama. I can't post the whole thing here due to technical difficulties but basically I had three points.

The timing of this bill suggests that they are trying to sneak it by - that is a mark against its popularity

Assault weapons have a legitimate purpose - protection against home invasion

The statistics cited by www.washingtonceasefire.org are bogus
compare www.washingtonceasefire.org/lobbygroup.asp
to www.nraila.org//issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=118

I won't be able to call because I need to get to bed, graveyard shift and all. I'm not good on the phone anyway.

Regards,

Jeff

[SAG0282]

*shakes head*


Hopefully this won't go too terribly far.......historically anti-gun bills haven't had great success in this state. Nonetheless it's time to draft up some emails.......

[Langenator]

Does anyone have a list of the committe members? I'd like to know if any of my reps actually sit on this committee.

[PaulV]

Does anyone have a list of the committe members? I'd like to know if any of my reps actually sit on this committee.

Check Here

http://www.leg.wa.gov/rosters/senate/SCommitteeMembersByCommittee.html

[homeka45]

Good luck, our bunch of elected morons just got into session. Who knows what kind of mischief they'll come up with.

[xenobia]

May I please borrow the gist of this?

I've just become aware that the state legislature is considering a new assault weapons ban. I find this to be highly disconcerting. I am an avid shooting sports member and I strongly support the second amendment of the united states constitution. Of course, the purpose of the second amendment has nothing to do whatsoever with hunting and sporting. It is primarily there to safeguard each individual American's right to arms in defense of liberty from the tyranny of the state or any other potential oppressor.

As such, the types of weapons with "military features" that are being considered in the ban are exactly the types of arms the Framers intended to protect. Contrary to the notions of gun-control groups like the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center, these types of weapons are used in an insignificant number of crimes compared to other types of weapons. The United States Department of Justice and the FBI have both made this very clear. The recently expired federal ban on so-called assault weapons had no impact whatsoever on crime, but did infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.

Most pro gun-rights citizens recognize these types of bans, which are primarily cosmetic with little plausible potential impact on crime, as another step down the slippery slope that inevitably leads to total gun confiscation, as was the case in England.

As your constituent, I ask that you please act against any gun-control measures that involve banning certain types of firearms or include gun registration. It is no surprise that the states with the most criminal violence (NY, NJ, IL, CA) also have the most gun control. Gun control does not work, and only disarms the law abiding majority among us.

I am fully in favor of extremely tough laws and sentences for criminal use of firearms. The record has shown that tough laws, sentences, and strong enforcement of these laws is the best deterrent to gun violence. Additionally, before any mention of the DC snipers, the fact that they used a so-called "assault weapon" was preferable to them using my grandpa's old .30-06 hunting rifle, which is much more powerful, accurate at long range, and cheaper than the Bushmaster rifle used by the criminals. The three people who survived the attacks probably would not have, had the snipers used a proper hunting rifle.

Sincerely,

[carnaby]

absolutely

[xenobia]

Thank you. :)

[pax]

This is VERY important.

From today's GOAL Alert, by Joe Waldron:
Tuesday, 25 January

3:30--5:30 p.m.

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate Hearing Room 1,
John A. Cherberg Building
Olympia Capitol Campus

SEVEN (7) gun bills will be heard in public testimony


1. SB 5344 - Regulating possession of firearms on the state capitol
campus.
2. Fifty caliber gun ban of 2005 (S-0541.1).
3. SB 5131 - Revising provisions concerning possession of firearms by
persons found not guilty by reason of insanity.
4. SB 5343 - Regulating the sale of firearms at gun shows and events.
5. SB 5342 - Encouraging safe storage of firearms.
6. Assault weapons ban of 2005 (S-0230.2).
7. Renewing a concealed pistol license by members of the armed forces
(S-0032.1).

Note that as of 5:00 a.m. the day of the hearing, there are no bill
numbers for the two gun ban bills or for the pro-gun military CPL
extension bill. Without a bill number, a citizen cannot access a copy
of the bill language from the state legislature's web site. A
coincidence, I'm sure.

If at all possible, please try to attend the hearing. Sign in on the
sign-in sheet and indicate a position on the bill (pro or anti). If you
choose to testify, remember that you are limited to no more than three
minutes and no personal attacks are allowed.

Several gun bills have now been filed in the House as well. A couple
are counterparts (duplicates) of bills filed in the Senate, but one
particular bill, HB 1490, would prohibit firearms in all state parks and
recreational areas (less those with range facilities or designated
shooting areas), with an exemption for CPL holders. More on these in
the next GOAL Post.

See you at the hearing!

Two separate gun bans, a "gun show loophole" bill, and a safe storage act. You military guys are going to be affected by one of the bills, too.

Reason enough to meet at the hearing, I say.

pax

[carnaby]

go have a look, I'm reading it right now :fire:

SB 5475 (http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=5475&year=2005)

[tarrigoni]

they actually use the word registration.

the sheriff is going to come to my house once a year? they're going to charge an undisclosed amount for registration and a yearly background check?

I have to give up my regular capacity magazines? are you freaking kidding me?

[carnaby]

Here's the definition of an assault weapon, pretty stupid
(18) "Assault weapon" means:
(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also possesses any of the following:
(i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located rear of the trigger;
(ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
(iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a telescoping stock;
(iv) A barrel shroud;
(v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
(vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
(b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;
(d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
(e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
(f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of any person.
(19) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
(20) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.
(21) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
(22) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
(23) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault weapon.

And then some crap about what you cannot do, like the following:

(2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.

These ???????s have really pissed me off. It seems to me that they've tried to bite off more than they can chew, and that this bill really has no hope. But just in case, we need to fight this piece of garbage.

the funny thing is, from what I gather you'd be able to own a regular-cap magazine, but just not load it past 10 rounds, except at a range or competition.

:fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire:

[tarrigoni]

I like how this isn't in ANY of the papers!

How would they know that I have an "assault weapon" at my house if I didn't register it, hmm????

[xenobia]

I have only heard it mentioned in one media outlet 770 KTTH on their 0500 program. :uhoh:

[carnaby]

they'd know if your neighbor or some other GFW turned you in.

[tarrigoni]

they haven't yet. 2 more hours till they start.

whats a GFW?

[patentmike]

Gun Fearing Wuss?
Geeky Freaking Wierdo?
Generally F-Upped Wanker?
Greasy Feminine Wacko?

[carnaby]

hearing has begun, discussing prohibition of CCW holders from carrying on capitol campus.

[tarrigoni]

how'd you find that out? you there?

[carnaby]

listening online here

http://www.tvw.org/mediaplayer/LiveREAL/REAL.cfm?EVNum=2005010191

[carnaby]

waiting for SB 5475 Assault Weapons Ban of 2005.

I'll post stuff as it occurs for those who can't listen in.

Onto the .50 cal rifle ban.

[carnaby]

GFW: 50 bmg is going to be used by terrorists and is a public nuisance. Can bring down airplanes and helicopters with one shot. Quoted some advertisements saying as much (doesn't mention which one). Calling them "artillery pieces" and "weapons of mass destruction".

Pro 2A: Harold Priest, Bill Waldron, Stu Halston?: still waiting, back to CCW at capitol.

[Carlos]

Looks like I'll take lunch at 8:30 on Friday. I'll be there with bells on.

BTW, as I first read this in the paper last week, it was regarding school property, not places where children are gathered.

Ginny Burdick will be getting a letter, along with all the others.

Thanks for the posting. Burdick is definitely an enemy to the gunowners of Oregon.

[RavenVT100]

Wow, I can't believe we just heard "if you shot a deer there'd be no meat left." Hasn't that one passed its sell-by date?

[SigPacker]

I thnk I am gonna be sick... argh... I just heard about this an hour ago... anyone know the outcome of the hearing? (I am trying to find the archive on the site)

SP :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :cuss: :cuss:

[SigPacker]

The archives: Media Player (cut and paste)

mms://198.239.32.152/Archives/200501/2005010191.wma

Or Click if you have real media player
Real Media (http://198.239.32.151/ramgen/Archives/200501/2005010191.ra)

:cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :eek:

[carnaby]

Sounds like we made a strong showing at the hearing. Good job guys.

I'm not sure how much it would help, but even Canada, no kidding, Canada, does not outlaw "assault weapons" as defined by this bill. It's true you have to register them and all that, but that's true of any firearm in Canada.

They can put that in their pipe and smoke it. Dammit :fire:

[pax]

I was at the hearing and just got home a few minutes ago.

It went about as you'd expect.

The room was packed full of very angry gun owners, and actually overflowed into two other rooms. Quite a crowd given the last-minute nature of the announcements. Most of us hadn't seen the most obnoxious bit of legislation, the Assault Weapons Ban, and got our copies just a few moments before the hearing began.

The proposed WA AWB is very much more restrictive than the recently expired federal ban, and includes the wonderful savory innovation of allowing the top cop of your county to inspect your home & storage facilities "not more than" once a year. The bill doesn't lay out any sort of standards for what constitutes safe or unsafe storage, doesn't say what will happen if the storage is unsatisfactory in the top cop's mind, and does say that a fee will be charged every time the gun's yearly registration is renewed. The amount of the fee is not specified.

The folks testifying for the anti-gun legislation were:

1) Mostly from King County
2) Mostly on the public payroll (eg Police Chief, head firefighter honcho, etc)

The few who were not, were folks representing Washington Ceasefire and the Physicians for ... er, public safety? social policy? I forget -- anyway, the organization has been around awhile and is basically just another Brady Bunch spinoff.

We were well represented by some paid lobbyists -- Joe Waldron and Brian Judy both did an excellent job testifying for us. There were also a lot of "just plain folks" called up to speak, so the committee chair did not allow each of our paid professional speakers to speak on each bill (he made them share their time, something he didn't require of the other side). I also think, sigh, the committee chair worked pretty hard at calling the scruffier-looking amongst us ... and I know that by calling a lot of "plain citizens" to speak, he was hoping most would make fools of themselves.

The crowd was interesting. Gun owners were all wearing the gun owners' uniform: blue jeans (mostly clean), flannel shirts or tee shirts with cover vests, and cowboy boots. My son remarked on the prevalence of beer bellies in the gun owner crowd. I noticed a few tats, leather, and long hair. It was obvious everyone had made some effort to clean up, and equally obvious that we were a working-class crowd, and not white collar workers either. There were not a lot of women on our side, only three or four of us. The women on our side looked, IMO, better than the men, but nowhere near as good as our opponents did.

Our opponents were dressed in navy or black business suits (males), or dressed up in high heels, stockings, business length skirts, etc (females). They looked a heckuva lot more presentable than we did, and a lot more professional.

The committee chair, Senator Kline, was noticeably anti-gun but worked hard to make it look like he was being fair and balanced. For instance, he said he would allow equal testimony time from each side. Very fair and balanced -- but far more than 3/4 of the crowd I saw was pro-gun. So the committee, apart from using their eyes, did not actually get a fair representation of the constituency in the room. The chair announced he would read out the numbers of folks who'd signed in to testify pro & con, but did so only once -- and that one was one of the earlier bills discussed. The ratio was 20 pro gun to 1 anti gun. After that he "forgot" to read the numbers again. Maybe it's in the transcripts.

The hearing dragged out for two and a half hours, but each person got to testify for only two minutes, plus questions at the end if the committee members were so inclined. And the testimony was limited to three or four people per side per bill.

The questions from the committee were sometimes amusing, sometimes provocative, and sometimes very interesting. Several of the committee members are plainly on our side (Senator Hargrove comes to mind here), but they appear to be outnumbered by the antis -- and not all of the ones on our side were able to stay throughout the entire hearing. This made the hearing a little more hostile to our side than it could otherwise have been. (Still, the crowd was soooo much on our side that even the committee chair and the most anti-gun of the members looking daggers at the witnesses didn't do much to intimidate folks from speaking their minds.)

The chair kept saying that he didn't usually say much, or hadn't said much, etc -- but his face said volumes, and he did say rather a lot. He argued with several of the witnesses, and got a pretty good laugh when he was grilling Joe Waldron. Waldron said that the Gun Show bill was imposing what amounted to a new tax, a really unfair tax. The chair interrupted to say, "It's a FEE, not a TAX, I just want to make that clear..." The rest of his words were drowned out in laughter from the crowd.

My prediction is that most of these bills will pass out of committee nearly unscathed, unless we all get up off our butts and do something about it.

pax

[Langenator]

It's really too bad that a) I'm stuck in SC; and b) DoD regs prohibit me from doing anything political while in uniform.

I would have loved to be able to testify at that hearing, in full dress uniform. I think I could fit the following into the two minutes allotted:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank for allowing me to speak. As an officer in the United States Army, I took an oath the 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' You are getting very close to meeting the definition for the latter."

[George S.]

The biggest hope is that the Legislature will spend most all of its time if trying to solve the budget crisis. Hopefully, this will die in committee or at least get watered down to the point where it's no worse than the old Federal AWB.

This bill was written by what I would call "radical" anti's who are out to simply ban most everthing. It looks like my 10/22 with its Ross Thumbhole stock would become an evil assault weapon. At least they didn't see fit to include my Garand!!

The registration part is silly in that most county Sheriff's offices won't have the manpower or time to perform any sort of check at residences.

WA is money-hungry right now and there is another bill that was introduced yesterday that would put tolls on some very heavily travelled roads around Pierce and King Counties. Some roads such as I-405, SR 167, I-90 from Seattle to the Eastside and even I-5 from the Pierce County line north to I-405! Putting a state toll on an Interstate Highway will be pretty hard to do as most of the funding for Interstate highways come from the Feds.

Legislators tend to get pretty stupid in their reasoning and bills in the early days as they are in some way having to placate their constituients and show them they are working hard on their behalf. Then the reality of business sets in and they find that their pet bills go nowhere fast. Hopefully it will be this way with this assinine assault weapons bill. I would have eto think the NRA is getting things in motion to stop this bill in its tracks.

Hell, we still aren't sure if we even have the correct person in the Guv's office yet!

[PaulV]

I watched part of the hearings last night on TVW. It wasn't good for my blood pressure. On the pro-bill anti-gun side there were about 5-10 people. Most were members of Washington Ceasefire. There were also a few doctors from Physicians for Social Responsibility and one lieutenant from the the Seattle PD. The senators in favor of the bill were all Democrats from Seattle. In short, the pro-side was exclusively Seattle urbanites. Their arguments basically consisted of these guns are bad, no one needs one of them, our police aren't safe, our children aren't safe, there's no meat left if you shoot a deer with one, and skewed statistics from the physicians. One young college aged guy held up a couple of photos of an AR-15 saying they were for private sale at a gun show. The look on his face was of total disgust like even touching the picture was revolting.

One sour faced old prune senator from Seattle scowled at the NRA rep and basically called him a liar when he said the NRA has child safety programs. She said that the NRA was just out for itself and did not care about children. Her definition of caring: they have not supported one restrictive law.

On the pro-side you had a large crowd in attendance. There were reps from the NRA, WAC, WSRPA, Olympic Arms, and couple of other organizations. They basically argued the statistical side. One brought up the absurdity of registering or confiscating constitutionally protected property. I thought one of the best speakers was the Oly Arms rep. Apparently he is a former Democrat Senator. He stated something to the effect of that being a Democrat didn't used to mean being against shooting sports. All of the (D) senators on the committee said of course that's not the case. He said that since he left office in Lewis County 17 years ago that not a single Democrat had been elected to the senate there. He told them that there just might be a reason for that.

They allowed one non-affiliated citizen to speak out against the AWB. He wasn't exactly eloquent but I think he made an important point. He read a passage from the Declaration of Independence. It was the part about the creator endowing us with certain unalienable rights and that governments are formed with the purpose to protect those rights. He told them they were failing to uphold their oath.

I can almost guarantee that none of the anti-gun people with the exception of the cop had ever fired one before. This is who we are allowing to drive law?

[carnaby]

For the record, and to rebut the phony statistics (which the anti's brought up at the meeting more than once) about "guns traced to crime," Dave Kopel reports the following
Cox's problem may be that BATF traces are not an accurate indicator of which guns are used in crime. In an average year, there are about 360,000 violent crimes committed with firearms. Of those 360,000 crimes, BATF is asked to trace about 5,600 crime guns (less than 2% of total crime guns).[130] It is statistically likely that there would be a difference between the 2% of guns traced and crime guns as a whole. The 2% of guns selected for a trace request are not a random sample, but rather a select group chosen by local police departments. (p.413)According to basic statistics theory, a non-random sample of 2% is unlikely to accurately represent the larger whole. A non-random sample becomes statistically valid only when 60% to 70% of the total relevant population is sampled. As the Congressional Research Service explains:

The firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes.

the link for the piece is here (http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html). Not that we do, but don't let them get away with this crap. :fire: :fire: :fire:

[Preacherman]

Duplicate threads merged.

[George S.]

PAulV's comments are intersting and points out a problem I see with certain members of the WA Legislature and how they react to testimony.

One sour faced old prune senator from Seattle scowled at the NRA rep and basically called him a liar when he said the NRA has child safety programs. She said that the NRA was just out for itself and did not care about children. Her definition of caring: they have not supported one restrictive law.

These type of people will most not likely swayed by facts and figures that come from the pro-gun side. She apparently is set in her ways and there will be little that can be done to sway her.

Seattle, as an entity, assumes that they are the epicenter of the state and that what they say, do, and want is not something that the rest of the state needs to be concerned with. This attitude reflects itself in what was seen at the hearing. It is interesting and sort of funny that the lowly Seattle PD Lieutenant appeared instead of the Chief (who is still trying to avoid questions about losing his service weapon from his unlocked car to a thief :neener: ).

Unfortunately, it's people like these who get the face time simply because they can postulate about the horrible ills that guns bring and they do so only from scripting and using their backers lies and skewed statistics. Hit them with truth and proper statistics based on all of the data available to support an argument, and they sink back into the woodwork.

Testimony from speakers are going to have to be factual and to the point. It will be difficult to sway opinion unless we carefully pick our words and how we present outselves to the Legislature. Professionalism in stating opinions and statements made in letters and phone calls must be carefully thought out and be pertinant to the specific issues at hand.

While we agree that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives us the RKBA, it may not be a big argument against specific bills. I really don't think that certain members of the Legislature are going to even see the 2nd Amendment as a reason why the bills should not pass.

We have to answer each of the bills with facts and solid reasons why they should pass or not. There are so many holes and errors in SB 5475 that it may take 10 pages in a letter to tell them why it is both unworkable, unfair, or simply not needed.

[nwmanitou]

Any updates?

When I hear news like this my head aches. I'm doing my darndest to finish school and move back to Washington. I really miss the landscape. Now I'm starting to rethink that desire.

When will we know if any of these bills are going to go through?

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

I called, wrote, and E-mailed my two district reps and Senator about specificly the proposed AWB and .50 cal ban. I recieved an E-mail response from a Sen. Rockefeller lacky who said that the Senator had recieved my message and would be responding in time.
However, Rep. Woods responded today with this E-mail;
"Thank you for your message regarding the issue of guns. There are
several gun bills being heard this week in the Senate. I understand
their chances of passing out of the Senate chambers are remote.

However, should they come to the House floor for a vote, I will not be
supporting them.

Thank you again for contacting me."

I always take politico-speek with a grain of salt, but at least I got one acceptable response.

[ksnecktieman]

Langenator? I like your line about enemies foreign and domestic,,,, I hope you do not mind if I co-opt it into future discussions.:)

[Henry Bowman]

Enacting either the .50 cal or AW ban will cause me to scratch moving back to WA off my list. :fire: Not that any of you actually miss me out there. :p

[abaddon]

Just wanted to point out something that I missed on my first reading of the law.

18 (c) defines an assault weapon as
"Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition"

also,

Their definition of "magazine" includes stripper clips

and,

any magazine containing more than ten rounds of ammunition when possessed by someone who also possesses the gun that it works in

Jeff

[MOAMike]

This comes from my friend in the legislature:

There was about 400 hundred Pro gun people there, about one anti to every 30, they had to open up another room to put us in.

I do have complete bills on the assault and 50 caliber ban, they do not have senate numbers still.

The highlights of the assault weapon ban is follows:
A shotgun with a muzzle break (poly choke) would be included
A semiautomatic handgun that can hold more than ten rounds
A shotgun with military features
All semiautomatic and pump riffles that can hold more than ten rounds
Allot of cosmetic features placed many common guns as assault weapons

To keep one of these guns, you have to register it with the county sheriff, pay a yearly fee for each, and the sheriff has to conduct a yearly home inspection.

If you want out of the described above you must make the firearm rendering it incapable of shooting a projectile or turn it into the local sheriff unloaded to be destroyed. The same goes for the 50 cal almost.

They had the Seattle Police and Fire Departments testified for all of the gun bans but when asked in there long careers if they experienced a 50 caliber incident they could not recall. They had Washington Cease Fire there, Doctors for the gun bans, and most surprising to me was a gentleman that represented all of the Lutheran Churches in the state of Washington and he also represented The Washington Association of Churches. They believe that all hand guns and assault weapons should be destroyed.

This is just the highlights, this is far from over, but the gun owners made a strong standing today.

Allot of the democrats kept saying the assault ban was identical to the federal one that just expired which is a lie, that did not require registering, fees,adding shotguns, and home inspections.

[Watcher53]

copy of email I sent to those I communicate with...


Why do I feel like I am shouting from a watchtower?

For those of you not watching the reports, several of our Washington State legislators have been proposing very intrusive and invasive bills. Several center around the concept of "gun control". Now some of the democratic party members, instead of trying to work on our current budget crisis ( I think 1+ billion deficet qualifies) are following the tactics of the current republican administration, eg using scare tactics (picture 9-11, mushroom clouds and weapons of mass destruction and terrorist alerts) to "direct" public thinking.

Nevermind the actual problems that exist in our state. Never mind the problems with the DSHS, the viaduct, jobs, transportation, energy independence, the homeless and hungry, displaced families..and so on. Trot out the favorite scare tactic and rivet the attention of the media.

But now the proposals of the "reps" are becoming more and more onerous. One even wants to ban semiauto matic rifles, and requiring a yearly inspection of the home storage by police, along with fees. How does this dovetail with "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"?

Some how, people have been led to make the assumptive leap that guns are bad, evil and if they go away everyone will be safe, or safer. Couple this with the suppression of reports that being armed actually saves people from being complete victims of crime only furthers to confuse people and leave them with just their hysteria or misinformation to rely on for judgement.

Two english speaking countries, that we have ancestral ties with, Austrailia and Great Britan have banned guns. Essentially all of them. Now, armed crime has increased in both tremendously. There, unless you have a policeman in your pocket, one is at increased risk at the hands of a law disregarding ARMED person. Obviously, there are not enough policemen for every pocket. So some people lose. They lose their safety, possessions, sanctity and sometimes their lives.

This is America. Read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers to gain a flavor of the times and further supplement your understanding of the goals of the founders.

To blindly go along with what is proposed (gee, that sounds like a good idea) is taking each of us, our spouses, brothers and sisters and our most cherished, our children and grandchildren into a future where true freedom and a civilian government will be long lost forgotten, where slavery and feudal systems will once again be the rule of the land.

Its 230 in the morning and I couldn't sleep. Please read and think on this.

[coylh]

Would it be helpful to remind the representatives of I676?

http://www.womenshooters.com/wfn/i676.html

Do they really want to give republican voters a battle cry in 2006?

[c_yeager]

Would it be helpful to remind the representatives of I676?

It's been awhile since i took a local polisci class but, if i recall I676 was an initiative and thus up for puplic vote. This is a bill, and as such it only needs to be pased by both (democrat controlled) houses and be signed into law by our shiny new (democrat) "governor". This has a VERY real chance of becoming law since there arent all that many hurdles in it's way. Clearly the lesson that Ceasefire learned from I676 is that Washington State voters still have some attachment to their freedom. This time they are just simply taking them out of the equation.

The way I see it this could go one of three ways. The whole enchillada could get derailed by some gun-friendly (or constituent conscious) congresspersons, who apparently have been silent up to this point. It could also get placed on the back burner in favor of things that actually WILL effect the safety/prosperity of this state (i'm hoping for this one). Or it could just slide right through in record time without opposition (this possibility is more likely than I would like to think about).

The anti's are running the whole show this time around. I promise you that Ceasfire has been sitting on this one since they got shot down last time. They have just been waiting for the right opportunity, and now they have it.

The scariest part is this: 18 (c) defines an assault weapon as Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition

Clearly the reader is INTENDED to read it this way:
An assault weapon is Any semiautomatic pistol or rifle or shotgun that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Thats bad enough but, if you read closely that isnt actually what is said. This is what it actually says. Notice that this is an EXACT duplicate of the text of the law but, with spaces to make it more understandable.

An assault weapon is:

ANY semiautomatic pistol,

ANY semiautomatic, center fire rifle,

ANY Shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.

That amounts to ALL semiautomatic weapons, period. And maybe some shotguns*

Of course I am sure that much of our "they will never take ma' deer rifle" crowd will be right behind this one.

*Shotguns are going to be an interesting topic. The capacity of a shotgun depends on how long your ammunition is. A tubular magazine will hold fewer 3" shells than 2" shells for example. Now, I wonder how many aguilla mini-shells you can cram into the average HD shotty? ;)

[coylh]

Yes, I didn't mean to contrast the mechanisms. My point was that if anything raises the ire of the conservative part of the state (ie, everything except King county), it's gun bans. Why would representatives paint targets on themselves (npi) for the next election?

[c_yeager]

Yes, I didn't mean to contrast the mechanisms. My point was that if anything raises the ire of the conservative part of the state (ie, everything except King county), it's gun bans.

I agree, and I think a LOT of people in this state are going to be pissed when they get wind of this.

unfortunatly:
Why would representatives paint targets on themselves (npi) for the next election?
many of our congress critters are simply too stupid/shortsighted/elitist to realize this fact untill AFTER this mess is passed and we are stuck with it.

[Watcher53]

"Do they really want to give republican voters a battle cry in 2006?"

In political chess, there are always the pawns that float the bad ideas.

The door needs to be slammed shut hard on these people. Now. Write your friends, the papers, the legislature, the State capitol. To delay, is to allow them to think.."maybe".

[abaddon]

Oh no! C_yeager's right! It bans all centerfire semiauto pistols and rifles! So the whole first half of the new bill is irrelevant, the real kicker is at the end. The first half is all about the features a semiautomatic gun cannot have, but then 18 (c) bans all semiautomatic guns (except .22 rifles).
:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[abaddon]

I just sent a letter to the editor of the Tacoma News Tribune, pointing out what C_yeager did. We'll see if they print it. If they do, I wonder if anyone here would be willing to defend my letter when it eventually gets attacked? They have a policy against writing more than once in 30 days. This would preclude me from responding. I'm afraid I lapsed a little into technical jargon so it might be easy for a mischevious anti to twist my words.

Jeff

(edited for clarity)

[xenobia]

Sure, let me know when it sees print.

[Old Dog]

Not one freakin' word about any other proposed legislation, such as the outrageous new AWB ...

Thursday, January 27, 2005
Anti-gun plan for Capitol under fire
Permit or not, bill would ban firearms
By KYLE ARNOLD
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Despite new security measures at the state Capitol, including metal detectors and X-ray machines, it isn't difficult for someone with a firearm to legally get within feet of the governor and 147 legislators.

Visitors with a concealed-weapon permit are allowed to enter the Legislative Building, firearms in tow, and some lawmakers are up in arms.

Capitol employees, lawmakers and gun-rights activists faced off Tuesday at a hearing on Senate Bill 5344, which would ban firearms in the Legislative Building.

Bill sponsor Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park, said the Capitol should be protected just like courts. "Emotions run high, and those who carry permits can certainly put their
guns in a lock box and come see the process," she said.

National Rifle Association spokesman Brian Judy objected to the legislation, saying people who legally carry concealed weapons use them for personal protection, not acts of aggression.

Under Fairley's proposal, concealed weapons would still be permitted elsewhere on the Capitol campus, including buildings that house hearing rooms and legislators' offices.
Through Monday, 26 guns had been detected at the entrances to the Capitol since the building started using metal detectors and X-ray machines Nov. 13. Twenty-four of those firearms were allowed inside the Legislative Building after owners showed concealed-weapon permits. Added security has also detected 20 knives more than 3 inches long, seven cans of mace and a sledgehammer.

The state is spending about $270,000 a year on the added security measures.

[carnaby]

is there even such a thing as a pistol with a fixed magazine with more than ten round capacity?

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

Well, I got another response, this time from one of the members of the Judiciary commitee, Sen Brian Weinstien. Not surprising.......

"Thank you for contacting my office regarding firearm related bills. I
appreciate your time and concern to this very contentious matter.

While I believe that as American citizens, the right to bear arms
provides some measure of entitlement for individuals to own firearms, I
also believe the degree of that entitlement, and the extent to which it
is applied must be balanced with the state's responsibility to protect
public health and safety. The purpose of Senate Bills 5344, 5131,
5343,
5342, S-0230.2, S-0032 share that decree.

By considering the opinions and testimonies of the Washington citizens
and legislators, I will faithfully act within my duties to preserve
individual liberties and provide protection for the citizens of
Washington.

Thank you again for contacting my office. I will keep your comments in
mind as we consider these bills.

Sincerely,

Brian Weinstein
State Senator
41st Legislative District"

Typical....."I understand what you want, but it dosen't matter anyway. I hate guns and think they are evil, and I know more than you."

[George S.]

You should reply to Sen. Weinstein with this paraphrase:

"Thank you again for contacting my office. I will keep your comments in
mind as we consider these bills."

Thank you for your reply. I will keep your comments in mind at the next election when you attempt to again run for office.

[abaddon]

Carnaby,

That was one of the main points of my letter. If you re-write 18 (c) to be unambiguous about not outlawing all semiautos you'd get something like this:

'Any semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition , any semiautomatic, center fire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition , or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.'

Then the first 1/3 of the sentence would be referring to something that doesn't exist. I suppose you could spot-weld a high-capacity magazine into the magazine well of your wondernine but you'd have to take the slide off to load it. Since the sentence as it stands is ambiguous, and the second reading I've outlined here refers to a type of gun that doesn't exist, the only logical conclusion is that it outlaws all centerfire semiautos.

Jeff

[MAClarkWA]

All I have to say about this is that if the legislature passes this new assault weapons ban (which I am sort of inclined to believe that they wont) I am moving back to California. One of the only reasons that I have, for the last four year, endured the horrible weather, poor traffic, bad food, bad shopping (never hear the end of it from my fiancé) and near total lack of culture is because Washington had such even handed gun laws.

Hell, these new laws are even MORE Restrictive than those that I left behind. I hope, really hope, that the legislature takes time to pause and consider it’s actions well. The radical democrats do not represent the majority of this states population and I believe that judging by the precarious situation that they find themselves in after one of the closest elections in this states history, they will realize how close each and every one of them are to being voted out.

We need to make them remember 1994 and remind them that mid term elections are not all that far away.

[George S.]

After reading abaddons' post
Oh no! C_yeager's right! It bans all centerfire semiauto pistols and rifles! So the whole first half of the new bill is irrelevant, the real kicker is at the end. The first half is all about the features a semiautomatic gun cannot have, but then 18 (c) bans all semiautomatic guns (except .22 rifles).


I'm not too sure that .22 semiauto rifles like the 10/22 are not included. If you read into this:
(18) "Assault weapon" means:
(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also possesses any of the following:
the part that is of real concern is in bold. If you have have aftermarket mags, then is a 10/22 included simply because hi-cap mags are available?? And note that cartridge types are not included in this section while they are mentioned in (18)(c). The fact there is a comma before "center-fire rifle" is also a concern unless this is a typo.

I also have a Boyds Ross Thumbhole stock on my 10/22. While I use this rifle only for informal benchrest shooting, this stock makes the rifle come under the section outlining the various "evil" features.

There are so many things in this bill and is written so badly, that it is a very serious threat. Hopefully the comment made by one of the legislators and posted here will come to pass. This bill needs to simply die in committee.

right now, it's important that your state Senator gets letters, e-mails and phone calls. For those that live near Olympia or can drive there, a visit would be of help too. Too many times, you call and get an aide who may not have the time to listen to your concerns or you get a voice mail box. A letter and mailed or face time will have more impact that anything else.

State Representatives may even see a House version of this bill in the near future. We should keep an eye out for new House bills that have the same purpose. Once you see them, write, call, e-mail, and visit if you can.

There are 5 separate Senate bills regarding gun issues. Voice your concerns on all of them and it's a good idea to do them separately. IMHO, only SB 5342 which encourages the safe storage of firearms is a reasonable bill and should be supported.

[abaddon]

George S.

I'm sure you're right about .22's with high capacity being included as AW's.

However, my post was in reference to all semiautos being banned REGARDLESS OF CAPACITY. The wording of 18 (c) (see my above post) is such that, though it APPEARS to be limiting them only if they can accept over 10 rounds, in fact it restricts them regardless of capacity.

On another note: my letter to the TNT was not published today, maybe tomorrow.

Jeff

[erikd65]

Now we in Washington know what the priorities are in Olympia... not terrorism, not hungry people, not the environment, not commerce and trying to get jobs back into the state... no its guns. The FIRST thing they go after is guns. That my friends says volumes. Of course it sends a great message of encouragement to criminals, I am sure they are all for it. I only hope that we have enough politicians with sense to vote NO.

E

[carnaby]

I sent messages to my three legislators using the legislature website contact form two days before the public forum. I selected the "would like a reply" box, and I am yet to recieve a reply. I'm not surprised that my (D) Seattle legislators are not interested in discussing the issue.

If you go to Sound Politics (http://www.soundpolitics.com) , you'll notice that we could reverse any crap the legislature passes by citizen initiative. I know that would be tough, given the bias of the media and all, but it's worth a shot if all else fails.

[p35]

Hey MAClarkWA:

That's exactly the attitude that gives refugees from California such a bad reputation here. I'm trying to stay on the high road here and not go off topic, but last I heard there's a southbound lane on I-5 as well. Us natives like it here!

[riverdog]

This issue concerns me a lot. I was raised and went to school in WA, and own a home there. I currently live and work in CA, and look forward to retiring back to my home in WA. The WA AWB would however, put those plans in serious jeopardy. ANY semi-auto rifle or pistol? Annual home inspections? Nuh Uhh...

[p35]

How's this for a theory:

The "no guns in the Capitol building" thing is probably going to pass. I don't really care- not real different from courthouses that already ban guns. Anybody remember the nut a few years ago who tried to drive his Jeep up the front steps and through the doors?

The other stuff is going to come up as "riders" to that bill, hoping to either sneak it in as a package or make us look unreasonable for killing the "no guns in the Capitol building" bill. The media obviously isn't getting that they're trying for more than the Capitol gun ban. What we need to focus on is keeping that bill clean so the other stuff doesn't get added in and passed as part of the package.

[c_yeager]

I agree with P35. But, i LIKE the fact that we can carry in the capitol building. I consider it a point of pride in our state and a significant show of mutual trust between the electorate and the people. Of course its obvious that they don't trust us anymore than we trust them. Frankly, there arent many elected representatives that I would allow into MY home with their armed guards so maybe it does make sense.

I just hope that the democrats don't have the cohesion to simply pass these bills outright. That would just plain suck. I think one thing that we need to do is make sure that the media gets it straight. Otherwise this is all going to look like "common-sense gun control" to the masses.

[BroncoGlenn]

I'd love to see a citizen during the public forum put forth the following(re: the no concealed carry in the capitol building): "That the public can carry firearms lawfully in the state capitol shows a trust between the legislators and their constituents. But what the legislature is saying now is that they no longer trust their constituents and feel that all of the people of Washington must be thought of as common criminals and thugs that can not be trusted." Followed with, "To carry a concealed firearm, the applicant must pass a background check to ensure he does not have a criminal record, but yet there is no such background check required for someone to hold office as a legislator of this state."

:evil:

[Langenator]

I just hope that the democrats don't have the cohesion to simply pass these bills outright.

I'm not sure they do, especially in the Senate. If this stuff passes, I think a lot of Dems from east of the mountains could kiss their job goodbye.

[abaddon]

You're right that the media is acting like this is only about the no guns in the capitol bill. I just don't think there's much we can do about it.

Someone already mentioned that the Seattle PI wrote an article on the 'no guns in the capitol' bill and made no mention of the other bills. This points to a deliberate attempt to let the other bills slide through. If they were just ignorant of them then we could inform them, but I think they're letting the general population be ignorant on purpose.

Everyone here with moderately good writing skills should write a letter to the editor of their local paper. They haven't published mine yet (it may have been too verbose) but with a number of these letters coming in they'll have to publish at least one.

Jeff

[pax]

Here's the GOAL update from our paid lobbyist, Joe Waldron. Please note that bill numbers have been assigned, which means you can finally look up the exact wording of the bills through the WA-gov web site.

When I talked to him at SHOT Show earlier this week, Waldron's opinion was that a couple of the REPUBLICAN committee members may not hold the line -- especially those from eastern Washington. If you live in eastern Washington and your Senator is on this committee, please (please please please!) contact them and let them know we are watching.

If Senator Hargrove is your Senator, please contact him with a note of appreciation. He is standing against his own party on this one for us, and that cannot be easy for him to do. Let him know we are watching and appreciate it.

Even if all the members ostensibly on our side do hold the line, there are some procedural things the chair can do to force these to the floor. Keep the pressure on, folks!

pax

GOAL Post 2005-4


Legislative Update from Olympia 28 January 2005

GUN BAN MANIA CONTINUES

GREAT TURN-OUT FOR SENATE JUDICIARY HEARING

MORE ANTI-GUN BILLS FILED

TIME TO CALL YOUR SENATOR

It’s clearly payback time AGAINST gun owners, with Washington Ceasefire,
animal rights groups, and their allies in the Democrat-controlled
legislature continue to file bills banning different kinds of guns,
banning guns in different locations and banning the private sale of
firearms at gun shows.

Approximately 300 citizens turned out for the 25 January public hearing
by the Senate Judiciary Committee. They were still signing in an hour
after the hearing began, a first in Washington legislative history! At
least 95% of the attendees were on our side of the issues, although in
the interests of “fairness,” committee chair Senator Adam Kline allowed
equal numbers of individuals (50-50) to testify pro and con (usually
four on each side of each bill). Even the news coverage of the event,
which ran 45 minutes over the scheduled two hours, gave us credit for
“200 attendees” and acknowledged most were opposed to the gun control
bills.

Gun ban bills just keep on coming. Senate bill numbers have been
assigned to the “assault weapons” ban (SB 5475) and .50 BMG caliber ban
(SB 5593). A House companion bill to SB 5475, the “assault weapon” ban,
has been filed (HB 1627) by Representative Ruth Kagi (D-32). A bill
banning the use of lead shot is being circulated, but final language has
not been selected. The bill could focus solely on hunting and field use
of lead shot, or it could include skeet and trap ranges as well.

At this time the bills considered in the public hearing in Senate
Judiciary last Tuesday are still there, where they will stay as long as
the four Republican members and Democrat Senator Jim Hargrove (D-24)
hold firm. I anticipate some form of procedural maneuver may be made to
get the bills out of committee.

NOW is the time to call your Senator and Representatives and let them
know how you feel about these bills. Elected officials DO respond to
public pressure. A brief BUT POLITE call or e-mail asking them to oppose
ANY infringement on your right to keep and bear arms can work miracles…
provided the call is made! You can call them toll free via the
Legislative Hotline at (800) 562-6000, or visit the legislative web site
at http://www.leg.wa.gov <http://www.leg.wa.gov/> and click on “Senate”
or “House of Representatives” at the top of the page to access their
direct phone lines (all begin with 360-786-xxxx) or e-mail addresses. <>

As this is being written, there are 86 days left in the 2005 Regular
Session. We have a long way to go!

BILL STATUS:

Bill # Subject Sponsor Status

SB 5041 Sentencing range McCaslin (R-4) S. Jud.

SB 5131 Insanity finding/firearms Carrell (R-28) S.Jud.

SB 5167 Firearm suppressors Hargrove (D-24) S.Jud.

SB 5342 Safe storage of firearms Kohl-Welles (D-36) S.Jud.

SB 5343 Gun show loophole Kohl-Welles (D-36) S.Jud.

SB 5344 Capitol campus gun ban Fairley (D-32) S. Jud.

SB 5383 Juvenile hunting licenses Oke (R-26) S. NatRes

SB 5475 Assault weapon ban Kline (D-37) S. Jud.

SB 5545 deployed military CPL renewal Roach (R-31) S. Jud.

SB 5593 .50 BMG rifle ban Kline (D-37) S. Jud.

SB 5635 Restoration of rights Schoesler (R-9) S.Jud.

SJM 8005 Manufacturer protection Benton (R-17) S. Jud.

HB 1133 Public disclosure law Nixon (R-45) H. StatGov

HB 1213 Juvenile hunting licenses Clements (R-14) H.NatRes

HB 1473 Safe storage of firearms…….Moeller (D-49) H. Jud.

HB 1489 Capitol campus gun ban Williams (D-22) H.Jud.

HB 1490 Park/rec area gun ban Darneille (D-27) H. Jud.

HB 1627 Assault weapon ban Kagi (D-32) H. Jud.

HJM 4002 Manufacturer protection Curtis (R-18) H.Jud.

Key to abbreviations: S. = Senate, H. = House, HJM = House Joint
Memorial, Jud = Judiciary, CJ&J = Criminal Justice & Corrections,
Fish/Ecol = Fisheries, Ecology & Parks, JuvJust = Juvenile Justice, Educ
= Education, LocGov = Local Government, NatRes = Natural Resources; W&M
= Ways and Means

<>

GOAL position on bills:

<>
SB 5041 Neutral

SB 5131 Neutral

SB 5167 Support

SB 5342 Oppose

SB 5343 Oppose

SB 5344 Concerns

SB 5383 Neutral

SB 5475 Oppose

SB 5545 Support

SB 5593 Oppose

SB 5635 Support

HB 1133 Neutral

HB 1213 Neutral

HB 1433 Oppose

HB 1489 Oppose

HB 1490 Oppose

HB 1627 Oppose

HJM 4002 Support

Note: Our position on bills may change as they are amended and move
through the process.

HEARINGS SCHEDULED:

<>
None. (A quick note on public testimony: as a general rule testimony is
subject to a three minute time limit ? which may be cut if there are
several people wishing to testify. Testimony should not be redundant ?
if someone else already said it, find something else to say. Like a
letter to the editor, testimony should focus on no more than two or
three points. Personal attacks or criticizing the motives of our
opponents is NOT allowed. Vague references to the Second Amendment or
Nazi gun control are meaningless in a public hearing.)

<>
LEGISLATIVE HOT LINE: You may reach your Representatives and Senator by
calling the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Toll free!!! The
hearing impaired may obtain TDD access at 1-800-635-9993. Also toll free!!!

1-800-562-6000 TDD 1-800-635-9993

<>

OTHER DATA: Copies of pending legislation (bills), legislative schedules
and other information are available on the legislature's web site at
"www.leg.wa.gov". It's available in two versions: text (.txt) file or
Acrobat (.pdf) file. The "Acrobat" version is preferred as it is easier
to read and is an exact copy of the hard copy format the legislators
use. You may download a free version of Adobe Acrobat from Adobe's web
site. You may also obtain hard copy bills, initiatives, etc, in the mail
from the Legislative Bill Room FREE OF CHARGE by calling 1-360-786-7573.
Copies of bills may also be ordered toll free by calling the Legislative
Hotline at (800) 562-6000. You may also hear floor and committee hearing
action live at http://www.tvw.org/ (you need "RealAudio" to do this,
available free at the TVW web site).

By reading the House and Senate "bill reports" (hbr, sbr) for each bill,
you can see how individual committee members voted. By reading the "roll
call" for each bill, you can see how the entire House or Senate voted on
any bill. The beauty of the web site is that ALL this information is
available, on line, to any citizen.

<>

GET THE WORD OUT: If you want to subscribe to the GOAL Post by e-mail,
send a message to "jwaldron@halcyon.com". Please pass GOAL Post on to
anyone you believe may have an interest in protecting our rights. Better
yet, make a couple of copies of this message, post it on your gun club’s
bulletin board, and leave copies with your local gun shop(s). PERMISSION
IS HEREBY GRANTED TO DUPLICATE OR REDISTRIBUTE GOAL POST PROVIDED IT IS
REPRODUCED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT TEXTUAL MODIFICATION AND CREDIT IS
GIVEN TO GOAL. I can be reached at "jwaldron@halcyon.com" or (during
session) by telephone at (425) 454-4915. Unfortunately, I am unable to
mail hard copy GOAL Post to individuals. Limited numbers of hard copies
MAY be available at WAC gun shows.

Upcoming WAC gun show(s):

<> Puyallup 5-6 February

Monroe 12-13 February

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself,
or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall
be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize,
maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Article 1, Section 24

Constitution of the State of Washington

<>

Copyright 2005 Gun Owners Action League of WA

[c_yeager]

I just figured I should take this opportunity to point out the "RKBA" section of the Washington State constitution for our out of state (and some in state) members. I hate to say it but, the courts may just be our last hope if this slides through.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

We nicely do right away with that "collective right" crap in the first sentance, and also afirm that the purpose of the RKBA is DEFENSE of self and state (not HUNTING). The capitol ban will likely pass muster with the state constitution but, they are gonna have to stretch really hard to justify the .50cal ban and the AWB. They argue that the weapons that they are banning are "extra deadly". But, "extra deadly" is just what you want in a WEAPON. The fact that these weapons are of military extraction helps the constitutional case.

Of course this is all academic since I seriously doubt that any of our lawmakers even have a copy of this particular document, nor do they care what it says.

On a sad note my district representative is one of the key sponsors of the .50ban. :( I'll write a letter but, it won't do a damn bit of good. I hope you people on the dry-side can talk some sense into your critters.

[Snake Eyes]

Is "Pistol Packin' Pam" Roach still in the WA State Legislature? If so, y'all need to be jumpin' on her and her son "Baby" Roach (assuming he is still there as well) for assistance with this.

Pam is well known among the legislators for carrying a concealed weapon on the floor, at all times. She should be a great advocate for shooting down these bills (of course the pun is intended!).

[R.H. Lee]

My God, what a raft of anti legislation. How can they get away with it in light of the WA constitutional RKBA provision????

[pax]

Snake Eyes ~

Yes, she is, and she was at the hearing briefly.

However, she is not a member of the Judiciary Committee. Right now, we need to keep pressure on those committee members to keep the bills in committee and not allow them to come to the floor.

pax

[Bugs66]

I wrote letters to my E. Spokane legislatures about the AWBs in committee. Responded as follows:

1. Sen. McCaslin - opposed to the AWB
2. Rep. Schindler - opposed to the AWB
3. Rep. Crouse - opposed to the AWB

Looks good in my district but what is the prognosis for the others (besides King county) ?

[abaddon]

in my correspondences with my reps. My Democrat representative and Republican representative both oppose these bills.

Representative Dawn Morrell (D) opposes
Representative Joyce McDonald (R) opposes

Morrell says that we "waste time trying to limit gun rights". Pretty good - maybe Democrats aren't all bad.

[c_yeager]

Representative Dawn Morrell (D) opposes

Thats good to hear. She is Peirce county right?

[Henry Bowman]

Do those who oppose the AWB also oppose the .50 ban? This should also be a big deal.

IMHO, the Capitol carry ban is much less of a big deal. The people put at risk as a result are the legislators themselves. It impact only a very small number of citizens.

[pax]

Henry Bowman ~

"Only a very small number of citizens."

If you listen to the RealAudio of the hearings, my voice is one of the last ones you'll hear. I drove an hour and a half up the road in order to be there to testify. When the hearing ended, it was after dark and the shuttle to the parking lots had already shut down. My car was parked -- as almost all visitors' cars must be parked -- at least 1/2 mile away from the room where the hearing was held. Of course my car was parked on the Capitol campus and under the proposed legislation I could not legally even leave my handgun in the car while I testified.

Should I have driven that far from home without the means to defend myself & my child if the car broke down? When I knew the ride home would happen after dark? Should I have left the gun (illegally) in the car where it could be stolen? Should I have planned to walk a half mile by myself in a big city after dark?

If this proposed legislation were already the law, should I have just decided to stay home and forget about trying to get to the Capitol for such hearings?

My point? The "very small number" of citizens you reference ... includes me.

It includes any person who ever wants to be politically active by visiting her senators and representatives.

It includes any mom who brings her kids for a day at the Capitol as a field trip.

It includes young women working in the office buildings there ... do you think they sometimes have to work after dark, after the shuttles have stopped, and might sometimes have to walk some distance back to their cars?

Oh, and it includes big, burly men who visit the Capitol for whatever reason, too. But who cares, that's only a very small number of citizens.

NONE of my rights are for sale.

pax

We must remember that a right lost to one is lost to all. -- William Reece Smith, Jr.

[Snake Eyes]

Pax,

This displaced Washingtonian very much appreciates the work you're doing on behalf of the RKBA. After all, I intend to return to Gods' Country one day.

walk a half mile by myself in a big city after dark?
However, if Olympia is the "big city" you, sweetpea, need to get out more often!! :neener:

Peter

(Stop by The Spar and have some Mac & Cheese for me. It's the "soup of the day", dontcha know!)

[abaddon]

Yeah, Dawn Morrel (D) and Joyce McDonald (R) are both in Pierce County - the 25th Legislative district. I still haven't heard back from my Senator Jim Kastama (D).

[Henry Bowman]

Pax,

I have never met you, but I have great respect for your opinions on this board and work in Washington to advance the pro-gun rights effort and to dispell stereotypes of gun owners and users (particularly as a parent). My respect for you and gratitude cannot be overstated.

I did not mean to belittle the magnitude of the impact (on you or anyone affected). I was trying to use as few words as possible to the compare and balance the magnitude of the risk against the number of people impacted. Even though the number affected is small (relatively speaking), the impact on those affected is great. Of those affected within the capitol building, the legislators themselves are most likely to be the target of a criminal meaning to cause harm to a specific person. If we look at the number of days spent each year in the capitol building, the legislators and their staff are most affected. Providing lock boxes at the security screening point would allow you (and them) to protect yourself outside of that controlled area.

Don't get me wrong. Every infringement on our right to self defense is insulting, endangering, and uncontitutional. Nevertheless, they happen and are tolerated. For example, my non-resident WA CHP does not allow me to carry in places where I may be most likely to need it (bars) or where our most precious treasures are kept (schools). The legislators should value their own lives enough to want to protect them, but, alas, the controlling majority in Washington does not. Nor do they value the principle of freedom enough to be willing to pay even a small price for it for themselves or others.

I lived in Washington for 11 years and hope to return there someday. Having a draconian state AWB and a .50 cal ban (even though I do not own one of the latter) would probably cause me to cross WA off my list of potential relocation spots. Banning capitol buliding carry would not, especially if they provided lock boxes at the door. A "campus wide" ban would be very bad (and even more stupid). But considering the mentality of those whose hold the majority in the legislature (and the gov) and the numbers who put them there, I sadly doubt that reason will triumph. The population explosion of Seattle and the urban mentality of liberalism and dependency that goes with it is killing eastern King County. On a state level, King County (because of the population power it carries) is attempting to kill the whole state.

I have passed your report of the hearings along to other gun owner's rights proponents I know in WA. They, like me, are worried that the Dem controlled legislature and governor are giddy to railroad these bills through and that the rational, reasonable rural culture is now completely overshaddowed by the burgeoning population of the liberal, urban culture of greater Seattle. They are fearing (and expecting) the worst of these anti-gun bills to pass. I have no faith in the WA Supreme Court to rationally and logically apply the state constitution and strike down these bad laws. (I am a member of the WA bar.) They have a history of being emotionally motivated and intellectually dishonest.

Compromise is immoral when we are talking about human rights. It is, however, a shameful political reality.

Thank you for fighting the good fight. We support you.

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

Well, I got another reply from one of the reps that I contacted, this time it was from Rep. Beverly Woods in response to my phone call. It stated;

"Dear Bradley,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the various pieces of proposed legislation pertaining to gun control. Most of the bills are currently being heard in the Senate with a few that have been introduced in the House.

Please be assured that I will not be supporting any of the gun control bills as they are currently written.

Again, thank you, for contacting me concerning this issue.

Sincerely,

Beverly Woods
State Representative
23rd Legislative District"

It sounds OK besides the part about "as they are currently written". But I figured y'all might like the update.

[Langenator]

Sent USPS to my Senator and Reps. It borrows heavily from the one posted earlier.
-------------

I've recently become aware that the Senate is considering a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” SB 5475. This bill flies in the face of both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution. Art. I, Sec. 24 reads:
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.”
The language is quite clear, and it should be equally clear that SB 5475 would violate it.
Proponents of SB 5475 and it’s companion bill, HB 1627, claim that these firearms are “too dangerous” and have “no legitimate civilian use.” I direct your attention again to the state constitution, “to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state.”

These types of weapons with "military features" and “high capacity magazines” that are being considered in the ban are exactly the types of arms that those who wrote the U.S. Constitution and that of the state intended to protect. Contrary to the notions of gun-control groups like the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center, these types of weapons are used in an insignificant number of crimes compared to other types of weapons. The United States Department of Justice and the FBI have both made this very clear, as has the National Academy of Science, which, in a recently released paper based on studies of almost 400 journal articles, books, and government publications, the concluded that it could not show a single gun control law that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. Gun control laws had no impact whatsoever on crime, but did infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.

Most pro gun-rights citizens recognize these types of bans, which are primarily cosmetic with little plausible potential impact on crime, as another step down the slippery slope that inevitably leads to total gun confiscation, as was the case in England and Australia, where guns have been virtually outlawed, and violent crime has skyrocketed.

As your constituent, I ask that you please act against SB 5475 any gun-control measures that involve banning certain types of firearms or include gun registration. It is no surprise that the states with the most criminal violence (NY, NJ, IL, CA) also have the most gun control. Gun control does not work, and only disarms the law abiding majority among us.

I am fully in favor of extremely tough laws and sentences for criminal use of firearms. The record has shown that tough laws, sentences, and strong enforcement of these laws is the best deterrent to gun violence. A new law such as Florida’s “5-10-20” law would be a much better solution than attacking the rights of the citizens of Washington.

[abaddon]

Here's the letter I got published in the Tacoma News Tribune:

Legislation’s language would outlaw many designs

Last updated: February 7th, 2005 02:40 AM
Senate Bill 5475 has received surprisingly little attention given its radical nature. Under the guise of an assault weapons ban, it slips in language which would outlaw all semi-automatic pistols and rifles (except .22 caliber rimfire rifles).

Section 18 (c) defines an assault weapon as: “any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.”

Upon an initial reading one would assume that it refers only to pistols and rifles that accept over 10 rounds. But a careful rereading reveals that the “10 rounds” phrase applies only to shotguns.

Consider the following sentence: ‘any chair, any blue sofa, or any coffee table made of oak.’ This sentence seems to refer to three types of oak furniture. In reality, however, the sentence really means that only the coffee table is oak.

This is even more clear when one considers that there are no pistols in production that “accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition” in a “fixed” magazine. Pistols with a magazine all use detachable magazines, not fixed magazines.

The true meaning of this bill is so foreign to the beliefs of the residents of Washington that its proponents can only hope to get it passed through verbal subterfuge.

The only other option is to believe that our senators are incapable of writing a coherent English sentence.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/letters/story/4527534p-4248147c.html

They edited it some, but it didn't change the meaning. I also sent copies to all of the Republicans on the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

[riverdog]

“any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.”Even if they actually meant semiautomatic pistols with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, that would apply to any semi-auto pistol that can accept a "high capacity" magazine. A Glock G-21 can accept both 10 round mags and 13 round mags, giving it "the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition." It would take a major rewrite to even get down to CA AWB standards.

[Henry Bowman]

The only other option is to believe that our senators are incapable of writing a coherent English sentence. Why would that be difficult to believe? After all one of your US Senators is Patty Murray.

[c_yeager]

Why would that be difficult to believe? After all one of your US Senators is Patty Murray.

You don't actually think that these laws are literaly written by the hand of the lawmakers do you? They are written by proffesionals that know what they are doing. And I assure you that little "mistakes" are not mistakes at all. They are simply 'loopholes' that allow selective interpretation. Our lawmakers know that law is ultimately made in the courts so they leave their legislation as "roomy" for interpretation as possible.

[abaddon]

I suspect that this was written by Washington Ceasefire anyway, I just wanted to close it off in a way that was insulting because I thought it would be more likely to get published.

Jeff

[abaddon]

I asked Representative Tom Campbell, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee, about the progress of the AWB. He says it is dead in the House. Not sure if he was referring just to the AWB or the other bills too. I'm emailing him again for clarification.

[pax]

Abaddon ~

You missed another thread ... um, it's around here somewhere ... where we all breathed a sigh of relief because the cut-off for getting the bills out of committee had passed. Here's what our man in Olympia had to say about that:
GOAL Post 2005-9

Legislative Update from Olympia 4 March 2005

POLICY COMMITTEE CUT-OFF PASSES

MOST GUN BILLS DIE

LEAD SHOT EXCISE TAX BILL STILL IN PLAY

51 DAYS REMAIN IN SESSION

At 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday (2 March), bills that had not passed out of
their original policy committee were and are considered dead for the
session. Remember, these cut-off dates are internal control measures,
and may be waived by a simple majority vote.

Almost all of the gun-related bills, good and bad, died this week. A
complete listing of what died and what is still in play can be found
below in the “Bill Status” section. Next week I will delete the gun
bills no longer under consideration.

The only really bad bill still under consideration is HB 2211, the lead
shot excise tax bill. It has until 5:30 p.m. Monday (7 March) to clear
committee or be considered dead for the session. At this point, and next
week’s schedule is already posted, it has not been scheduled for a
public hearing. Tax (revenue) bills are a little different, however, in
that it is fairly easy for them to be amended or rolled into another
revenue bill. Given the state’s revenue shortfall and the “creative
financing” going on in Olympia this year to “find” $2.2 BILLION
somewhere, this is one we’ll have to keep an eye on for several more weeks.

51 days remain in this year’s 105 day session. We still need to be alert
to procedural manipulation or “deal cutting” as various cut-off
deadlines approach. This is the biennial budget year, where billions of
taxpayer dollars are being doled out (not to mention shotgunners’ lead
excise tax bucks!). Gun control advocates may offer pork barrel projects
in return for votes on gun bills. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom!

BILL STATUS:

Bill # Subject Sponsor Status

SSB 5041 Sentencing range McCaslin (R-4) S. W&M

SB 5131 Insanity finding/firearms Carrell (R-28) S.Rules

SB 5167 Firearm suppressors Hargrove (D-24) Died S.Jud.

SB 5342 Safe storage of firearms Kohl-Welles (D-36) Died S.Jud.

SB 5343 Gun show loophole Kohl-Welles (D-36) Died S.Jud.

SB 5344 Capitol campus gun ban Fairley (D-32) Died S. Jud.

SB 5383 Juvenile hunting licenses Oke (R-26) Died S. NatRes

SB 5475 Assault weapon ban Kline (D-37) Died S. Jud.

SB 5545 Military CPL renewal Roach (R-31) Died S. Jud.

SB 5593 .50 BMG rifle ban Kline (D-37) Died S. Jud.

SB 5635 Restoration of rights Schoesler (R-9) S. Rules

SJM 8005 Manufacturer protection Benton (R-17) Died S. Jud.

SHB 1133 Public disclosure law Nixon (R-45) H. Rules

SHB 1213 Juvenile hunting licenses Clements (R-14) H. Rules

HB 1473 Safe storage of firearms Moeller (D-49) Died H. Jud.

HB 1489 Capitol campus gun ban Williams (D-22) Died H.Jud.

HB 1490 Park/rec area gun ban Darneille (D-27) Died H. Jud.

HB 1627 Assault weapon ban Kagi (D-32) Died H. Jud.

HB 1687 Insanity finding/firearms Moeller (D-49) H. Rules

HB 1804 CPL renewal notification Ericksen (R-42) Died H. Jud.

HB 1822 Lead shot hunting ban Kagi (D-32) Died H. NatRes.

HB 2211 Lead shot excise tax Kagi (D-32) H. Fin.

HJM 4002 Manufacturer protection Curtis (R-18) Died H.Jud.

Key to abbreviations: S. = Senate, SSB = Substitute Senate Bill, H. =
House, SHB = Substitute House Bill, HJM = House Joint Memorial, Jud =
Judiciary, Fin. = Finance, NatRes = Natural Resources; W&M = Ways and Means

GOAL position on bills:

SSB 5041 Neutral

SB 5131 Neutral

SB 5167 Support

SB 5342 Oppose

SB 5343 Oppose

SB 5344 Oppose

SB 5383 Neutral if amended

SB 5475 Oppose

SB 5545 Support

SB 5593 Oppose

SB 5635 Support

SJM 8005 Support

SHB 1133 Neutral

SHB 1213 Neutral

HB 1473 Oppose

HB 1489 Oppose

HB 1490 Oppose

HB 1627 Oppose

HB 1687 Neutral

HB 1804 Support

HB 1822 Oppose

HB 2211 Oppose

HJM 4002 Support

Note: Our position on bills may change as they are amended and move
through the process.

HEARINGS SCHEDULED:

None scheduled

LEGISLATIVE HOT LINE: You may reach your Representatives and Senator by
calling the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Toll free!!! The
hearing impaired may obtain TDD access at 1-800-635-9993. Also toll free!!!

1-800-562-6000 TDD 1-800-635-9993

OTHER DATA: Copies of pending legislation (bills), legislative schedules
and other information are available on the legislature's web site at
"www.leg.wa.gov". It's available in two versions: text (.txt) file or
Acrobat (.pdf) file. The "Acrobat" version is preferred as it is easier
to read and is an exact copy of the hard copy format the legislators
use. You may download a free version of Adobe Acrobat from Adobe's web
site. You may also obtain hard copy bills, initiatives, etc, in the mail
from the Legislative Bill Room FREE OF CHARGE by calling 1-360-786-7573.
Copies of bills may also be ordered toll free by calling the Legislative
Hotline at (800) 562-6000. You may also hear floor and committee hearing
action live at http://www.tvw.org/ (you need "RealAudio" to do this,
available free at the TVW web site).

By reading the House and Senate "bill reports" (hbr, sbr) for each bill,
you can see how individual committee members voted. By reading the "roll
call" for each bill, you can see how the entire House or Senate voted on
any bill. The beauty of the web site is that ALL this information is
available, on line, to any citizen.

GET THE WORD OUT: If you want to subscribe to the GOAL Post by e-mail,
send a message to "jwaldron@halcyon.com". Please pass GOAL Post on to
anyone you believe may have an interest in protecting our rights. Better
yet, make a couple of copies of this message, post it on your gun club’s
bulletin board, and leave copies with your local gun shop(s). PERMISSION
IS HEREBY GRANTED TO DUPLICATE OR REDISTRIBUTE GOAL POST PROVIDED IT IS REPRODUCED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT TEXTUAL MODIFICATION AND CREDIT IS GIVEN TO GOAL. I can be reached at "jwaldron@halcyon.com" or (during session) by telephone at (425) 454-4915. Unfortunately, I am unable to mail hard copy GOAL Post to individuals. Limited numbers of hard copies
MAY be available at WAC gun shows. GOAL Post is usually posted to the
Washington State Rifle & Pistol Association’s web site within 24 hours
of transmission (http://www.wsrpa.org).

Upcoming WAC gun show(s):

Monroe 12-13 March

Puyallup 2-3 April

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself,
or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall
be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize,
maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Article 1, Section 24

Constitution of the State of Washington

Copyright 2005 Gun Owners Action League of WA



And here's the latest update from the desk of Joe Waldron, lobbyist for Washington's Gun Owner's Action League:

The House Finance Committee ended a marathon public hearing/executive
session a short time ago. HB 2211 (excise tax on lead shot) was NOT
brought up. End-of-business today is the cut-off for legislative fiscal
committee action on bills. This is another important hurdle that
blocked an extremist gun control bill (the power to tax is the power to
destroy).

Lest anyone think all these gun bills were just smokescreen and "they
never would have passed..." All of the right conditions were in place
for a repeat of the 1993-94 legislative session, when several gun
control measures passed the legislature and were signed by then-Governor
Mike "Where have YOUR hands been today?" Lowry. Democrats control the
House, the Senate and the Governor's desk. The urban Democrat caucus is
firmly in charge of the agenda. Just look at some of the other bills
still moving, liberal to the core.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the gun control fest. Several
rural Democrat legislators were given a history lesson of what happened
in the 1994 elections. Just a few words whispered in the right ears.
And then the 25 January hearing on gun bills in the Senate Judiciary
Committee, where hundreds of gun rights advocates gave meaning to the
whispered history lesson. That was enough to rattle cages and encourage
rural Dems to encourage THEIR leaders to back away from gun control.
For now.

The session is by no means over. The next important hurdle will come
next Wednesday (16 March) when all bills must pass their original
chamber. That makes resurrecting and acting on any of thes ebills even
harder. But it can happen.

And remember that our legislature works a biennium -- TWO year cycles.
All bills filed this year may be considered next year as well.

I will continue to publish the weekly GOAL summaries (GOAL Posts), and
alerts as required.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

[Henry Bowman]

Thanks for keeping us up to date, Pax.

[abaddon]

Yeah, thanks Pax. Glad nothing drastic has happened.