NRA Lawsuit against Washington State


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 05:39 AM
Came across this today from the NRA Site:

NRA Files Suit Against Washington State for Second Amendment Violations
The National Rifle Association (NRA) today filed suit against the State of Washington charging it in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution by preventing firearm ownership to non-United States citizens legally residing in the U.S.

“The actions of Washington State are denying honest, hard-working men and women equal protection under the law, as held in the U.S. Constitution," said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “Under current law, these law-abiding residents are now subject to arrest, seizure of their firearms and possible deportation. NRA will always stand on the side of law-abiding individuals and the protection of their inherent right to self defense.”

Washington State’s law is unique in making it a felony for any non-citizen, including lawful permanent residents, to possess a firearm without having first obtained an Alien Firearms License (AFL). A license is not required for possession of a firearm in Washington State by U.S. citizens.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=11779

Seems like this could potentially lead to some opposing constitutional interpretations re: Foreign Nationals and Homeland Security. Some opponents of various national security measures have argued that constitutional protections do not start and stop with citizenship, while proponents have argued "yes, they do".
In the broader security context (which I believe is smack in the middle of the spirit of the 2nd) - what implications could this have?

Personally - I have to side with Washington on this one. Not to raise the alarms here, but I can think of 19 guys not all that long ago who came to this country legally, and at one point would have passed a simple background check. 19 guys who are PRECISELY the people we do NOT want to have guns on our soil.
As citizens, we have to pass a background check to buy firearms. There is an expectation of accuracy to that system, as all states are operating on the same page, and contributing to the same system in a reasonably reliable fashion. The same cannot be said for foreign countries. To me, it seems this may open the door to allow potentially violent criminals to take advantage of our open society. In the worst case, they could use that openness directly against us.

There is however the possibility, and I can only assume this is the NRA's position - that this could be the beginning of a slippery slope.

The question is - is there a line, and where should/would it be drawn?

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Lawsuit against Washington State" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 05:41 AM
Also - if this is off-topic for this area, I apologize. Couldn't quite figure out the best place to put it, and it is generally a legal question.

Bubba613
November 11, 2008, 05:46 AM
You realize you are making pretty much the same argument that antis do against law abiding gun owners, right?

Non citizens have exactly the same rights in this country that citizens do, less the right to vote. The 2A applies to them as well.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 06:07 AM
You realize you are making pretty much the same argument that antis do against law abiding gun owners, right?

Non citizens have exactly the same rights in this country that citizens do, less the right to vote. The 2A applies to them as well.

Well, but again - than how does that fit with some of the broader national security initiatives?

Also - you sort of said it yourself....

law abiding gun owners

Define "law abiding" as it applies to foreign nationals with potentially unknown backgrounds. "Law Abiding" in a foreign country, does not necessarily mean "law abiding" in the united states.
The Washington law also does not say foreign nationals cannot own guns. As I understand it - it's simply a way of making sure we're not handing over the keys to the kingdom.

ericyp
November 11, 2008, 08:44 AM
The bill of rights are rights that should be extended to all people in the United States without strong convictions forcing otherwise. Period. I would not deny a legal immigrant the the 2nd any more than I'd deny them the right to free speech, or to a speedy trial.
Your evidence... you know 19 immigrants who you think are unfit to bear arms, so none should be able to keep guns?
Well I've met thousands of citizens that I wouldn't trust with a gun, so should no citizen be allowed to bear arms either? I am a Washington resident, and I'm fully behind the NRA on this one.

General Geoff
November 11, 2008, 08:55 AM
Personally - I have to side with Washington on this one. Not to raise the alarms here, but I can think of 19 guys not all that long ago who came to this country legally, and at one point would have passed a simple background check. 19 guys who are PRECISELY the people we do NOT want to have guns on our soil.
As citizens, we have to pass a background check to buy firearms. There is an expectation of accuracy to that system, as all states are operating on the same page, and contributing to the same system in a reasonably reliable fashion. The same cannot be said for foreign countries. To me, it seems this may open the door to allow potentially violent criminals to take advantage of our open society. In the worst case, they could use that openness directly against us.

Nobody said liberty was guaranteed safe.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:08 AM
The bill of rights are rights that should be extended to all people in the United States without strong convictions forcing otherwise. Period. I would not deny a legal immigrant the the 2nd any more than I'd deny them the right to free speech, or to a speedy trial.
Your evidence... you know 19 immigrants who you think are unfit to bear arms, so none should be able to keep guns?
Well I've met thousands of citizens that I wouldn't trust with a gun, so should no citizen be allowed to bear arms either? I am a Washington resident, and I'm fully behind the NRA on this one.


Fair enough - but then the second part of the question, what implications does that pose to other efforts of national security? Specifically in terms of taking action (surveillance, certain forms of interrogation, due process/legal maneuvering, etc) against foreign nationals?

Eightball
November 11, 2008, 09:17 AM
I'm not saying which side I take in this debate, but certainly raises a lot of honest-to-goodness questions. So far, the debate has been civil (I"d say), and I think this thread could potentially be informative if kept High Road :)

MDW GUNS
November 11, 2008, 09:18 AM
We are talking about legal residence who even pay taxes, not illegal aliens.
I never understood why WA had this law and I disagree with it.
Good for the NRA!

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:35 AM
We are talking about legal residence who even pay taxes, not illegal aliens.

We're not saying they CAN'T have guns, just that they will be held to the same standard as the rest of us.

The issue as I see it - is whether the NICS may not be equipped to handle a foreign criminal history. If we're talking about a person with perhaps a violent history, or worse an extremist history - is that reflected in NICS checks?

Kindrox
November 11, 2008, 09:42 AM
My father is nearly 80 years old and has lived here since he was four years old. I doubt anyone told him about getting a firearms card.

Should he be taken to jail?

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:45 AM
My father is nearly 80 years old and has lived here since he was four years old. I doubt anyone told him about getting a firearms card.

Should he be taken to jail?


While i'm not suggesting he should be taken to jail - The question does have to be asked...

is he a citizen, or a resident alien?

MDW GUNS
November 11, 2008, 09:47 AM
...the NICS may not be equipped to handle a foreign criminal history...

No, the NICS will not show a criminal history outside the US.
However, in order to get a Green Card, the INS investigates this in the home country and a legal resident would not be one if there is a criminal history!

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:48 AM
However, in order to get a Green Card, the INS investigates this in the home country and a legal resident would not be one if there is a criminal history!


Yea, cause we all know how great a job they do!

MDW GUNS
November 11, 2008, 09:51 AM
Yea, cause we all know how great a job they do!
No, I don't know.
Why don't you give us a few facts about that??

I actually think they do a good job with what they have to deal with and I know!

cassandrasdaddy
November 11, 2008, 10:02 AM
ins does ok but at some point they rely on foreign government agencies at that point train leaves track

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 10:04 AM
Officials said the coordination should also help to minimize the communication errors that preceded the Sept. 11 attacks. In one glaring breakdown, two Sept. 11 hijackers were allowed to enter the country and live in San Diego even though the C.I.A. suspected that they were terrorists. Other agencies later complained that the C.I.A. did not seek to put the men on domestic watch lists until weeks before the attacks.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E7DE143AF934A2575AC0A9659C8B63


By Bill Gardner, Pioneer Press, St. Paul, Minn.

Apr. 12--Marine Staff Sgt. Daniel Brown has just spent the past eight months serving his country in Iraq, only to return to the United States and find out his country had placed him on a watch list as a possible terrorist.


http://www.redorbit.com/news/politics/467256/terror_watch_list_trips_up_marines_homecoming/index.html


So let me get this straight.
We let known terrorists into the country - who *gasp* commit terrorist acts, who knew!?!?!
Yet we give a vet returning from Iraq a hard time?

Sorry if my faith in that system is a little shakey....

Be advised, I am also playing a slight role of devil's advocate - but I do believe there's some legit questions/concerns here...

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 10:06 AM
Yea, cause we all know how great a job they do!

I also should revise this statement - it's not strictly a dig at INS directly... that whole system is a bit... let's just say it could use some improvement...

MDW GUNS
November 11, 2008, 10:14 AM
It's always easy to say "know/knew it better".
If you compair the US with other agancies in the world, they are doing qauite a better job.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 10:19 AM
If you compair the US with other agancies in the world, they are doing qauite a better job

On "we do a better job" - Yes and no.
I would have to dig around for it - but there have been instances of people on the terror lists that slip right past our guys, flying internationally, who get stopped on the other end.

As far as "easy" to know/knew better...
Clerical errors are easy... dead bodies - not so much.

everallm
November 11, 2008, 11:50 AM
Folks,

If you do a search on this very site you will see a lot of relevant detail.

This suit relates solely and only to permanent resident aliens who are already federally legally permitted to own firearms

There is an anomaly in WA where previously PRA's could have CCW's but due to some badly written laws are now banned.

This was due to the stupid manner in which the law and agency about the Alien Firearm Licence came to be set up.

Law of unintended consequences at work

.38 Special
November 11, 2008, 12:55 PM
So, as a good Republican, how does one reconcile a hatred of foreigners with a love of guns?

Next thing you know, folks will be trying to argue that even gay abortion doctors should have gun rights!

ilbob
November 11, 2008, 12:57 PM
I am not opposed to extending firearms rights to people who have legally emigrated to this country.

justice4all
November 11, 2008, 01:19 PM
Is the RKBA a natural right, inherent in all humans as an extension of the right to self-preservation? Or is it a privilege that the government can extend to, and later take away from, a chosen few?

Kind of Blued
November 11, 2008, 01:27 PM
Is the RKBA a natural right, inherent in all humans as an extension of the right to self-preservation? Or is it a privilege that the government can extend to, and later take away from, a chosen few?

I'm not sure that anything which requires a form of man-made tangible hardware can be called a "natural" right.

22lr
November 11, 2008, 01:35 PM
Personally I have no problem with this, the more people with guns the better. Heck what are they going to do go start a shooting war with semi ARs..;) Without knowing who is involved here id have to say im for this, no terrorist is going to buy a legal weapon for crying out loud and if some immigrant who is here legally but not a citizen wants a shotgun (or even a AR) why not let them.:)

MD_Willington
November 11, 2008, 01:55 PM
Unless you have backgrounds checks for .GOV clearance, as a LPR I've probably had a more thorough check than anyone here... Local WA, Federal USA, RCMP (Canada), UK (yes I'm dual Canadian/UK citizen)...

Besides, I have 3 American born children, don't they deserve to be protected by their Mother and Father... who happen to be Legal Permanent Residents?

ilbob
November 11, 2008, 02:03 PM
Is the RKBA a natural right, inherent in all humans as an extension of the right to self-preservation? Or is it a privilege that the government can extend to, and later take away from, a chosen few?
I am not convinced it is a natural right. If it is a right, what about people who cannot afford one? Should one be provided at government expense?

I do not believe it to be a natural right on par with freedom of religion and expression, and the general right to self defense.

ilbob
November 11, 2008, 02:05 PM
Unless you have backgrounds checks for .GOV clearance, as a LPR I've probably had a more thorough check than anyone here... Local WA, Federal USA, RCMP (Canada), UK (yes I'm dual Canadian/UK citizen)...
I am opposed to the US allowing its citizens to be citizens of another country simultaneously.

I am in favor of persons legally residing in the US having the same firearms rights as non-citizens.

Rmeju
November 11, 2008, 02:07 PM
To clear up a few misnomers:

I started the process of getting my wife into this country June of 2007. She got her LPR (legal permanent residence) last month.

1. There is ample time to check out the criminal/terrorist histories. I believe these checks are being done

2. At some point, as another poster said, we are relying on a foreign government. I know for a fact that an affirmative, notarized statement of a crime-free history is a required piece of paperwork in order to get LPR.

3. In order to falsely pass this kind of check, the government in our theoretical terrorist's home country must be sponsoring his terrorism. We know who we believe to be state sponsors of terrorism. I highly doubt we rely too heavily on such government's word when deciding whether or not to issue an immigrant visa.

4. I believe futher investigation is done beyond this good conduct certification. I don't have proof, but it is my belief based on the process as I've seen it.

I understand that false paperwork can be a problem, and that it may be easier to get fakes some places than others. Again, I believe DHS is keenly aware of the problems in such places. What they do (if anything) to effectively combat the problem, I couldn't say. I can say that it is sufficiently difficult for that average person to fake their way through our system that we don't need to concern ourselves too much with it.

Professional terrorists are just that, professionals. They are not the average person, and if they can't get a gun legally, but have the resources to fake their way through DHS, they can probably get a gun illegally if they want. In any case, it would seem guns aren't terrorists favorite weapons these days.

My two cents.

Rmeju

expvideo
November 11, 2008, 02:17 PM
Personally - I have to side with Washington on this one. Not to raise the alarms here, but I can think of 19 guys not all that long ago who came to this country legally, and at one point would have passed a simple background check. 19 guys who are PRECISELY the people we do NOT want to have guns on our soil.
As citizens, we have to pass a background check to buy firearms. There is an expectation of accuracy to that system, as all states are operating on the same page, and contributing to the same system in a reasonably reliable fashion. The same cannot be said for foreign countries. To me, it seems this may open the door to allow potentially violent criminals to take advantage of our open society. In the worst case, they could use that openness directly against us.

There is however the possibility, and I can only assume this is the NRA's position - that this could be the beginning of a slippery slope.

The question is - is there a line, and where should/would it be drawn?

The constitution doesn't say that the bill of rights only applies to citizens. The right to self defense is a basic human right, not an American citizen right.

armedandsafe
November 11, 2008, 02:50 PM
Some points to consider:

1) Washington is the ONLY state to require such additional licensing.
2) The FBI refuses to share background information with any non-judicial agency.
3) The FBI told the Legislature how to fix the problem and the Legislature did so, following their specifications.
4) The FBI refuses to share the background information with an agency designated the way they require such an agency to be designated.

(Are you dizzy, yet?)

Once again, we have the NRA taking sole credit for an action taken jointly with SAF.

SAF, NRA Sue Washington State for Discriminating Against Alien Residents
The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the National Rifle Association, today filed a lawsuit in federal court against the State of Washington, seeking to overturn a state law that discriminates against legal resident aliens who own firearms by violating their Second Amendment rights under the equal protections affirmed by the 14th Amendment.

Read the release announcing the lawsuit.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=281

Read more and download case filings
http://saf.org/legal.action/wa.alien.resident.lawsuit/wa.alien.resident.complaint.pdf

Pops

user3214
November 11, 2008, 02:58 PM
Fear leads to more regulation and restrictions. So no fear – this is home of the brave.
The case you make could be made against anyone. The Brady website has something along the lines to prevent criminals/terrorists getting dangerous weapons we need an assault weapon ban.


On the other hand no one argues immigrants shouldn’t drive because on purpose they might crash into a group of people.


Why don’t we have the same mindset toward cars as weapons?

justice4all
November 11, 2008, 03:22 PM
So human beings have a general right to defend themselves, but no right to the tools to do so? So because a gun is man made you don't have a natural right to defend yourself with one? But you would with a rock...as long as it wasn't shaped or sharpened by a man or machine. And you could use a stick that fell off a tree in a windstorm, but not one that was purposefully cut and sharpened into a spear?

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 04:05 PM
So again - the question that no one seems to be addressing...

If we all agree that the constitution does not start and stop with citizenship - what effect does that have on other legal initiatives?

MDW GUNS
November 11, 2008, 04:21 PM
One point nobody brought up is, that this law is only for those people who live by the laws anyway, because the "terrorist" and criminals will have their guns, no matter what nationality they are!

expvideo
November 11, 2008, 04:31 PM
So again - the question that no one seems to be addressing...

If we all agree that the constitution does not start and stop with citizenship - what effect does that have on other legal initiatives?

Just like rights, laws apply to everyone. Not just citizens. Am I misunderstanding your question?

MD_Willington
November 11, 2008, 04:43 PM
I am opposed to the US allowing its citizens to be citizens of another country simultaneously.

I am in favor of persons legally residing in the US having the same firearms rights as non-citizens.


I came into the country with dual citizenship already under my belt... who says I'll keep the others once I'm sworn in as a US citizen ??

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 04:51 PM
Just like rights, laws apply to everyone. Not just citizens. Am I misunderstanding your question?


So why then is it acceptable to wire-tap non-citizens, but not citizens?
We can we suspend the rights of certain people in certain places, but not citizens?

By your logic there - given some of the things that go on these days - we should all be very, VERY scared right now.

expvideo
November 11, 2008, 04:59 PM
So why then is it acceptable to wire-tap non-citizens, but not citizens?
It's not. The bill of rights is supposed to apply to everyone.

We can we suspend the rights of certain people in certain places, but not citizens?
We shouldn't. The bill of rights is supposed to apply to everyone.

By your logic there - given some of the things that go on these days - we should all be very, VERY scared right now.
Yeah. We should.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 05:28 PM
expvideo:

So then why wasn't there more of an effort made at the time some of these policies went into place to stop them?

If a precedent is set of suspending constitutional rights for the "greater good" of national security, could the same argument be applied to domestic policy?

And just to reiterate, this isn't an attack on ideas or strategies or anything like that. Just a serious question to think about how we approach these issues.
I think perhaps sometimes we look at gun laws in a bit of a vacuum, and in some cases may perhaps miss a bigger picture trend.

justice4all
November 11, 2008, 06:35 PM
What policies, exactly, are you talking about? Do you have a link to a law that allows the government to wiretap permanent residents more easily than citizens?

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 06:42 PM
justice - we can start with the most obvious:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17383leg20030328.html

justice4all
November 11, 2008, 07:02 PM
I know about the so-called Patriot Act, but not in great detail. Are you saying it allows the government to wiretap permanent residents of this country more easily than citizens? I was not aware of that provision.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 08:25 PM
I'm still reading through all the text of the various bills, modifications, amendments, etc (this still will make your head spin from the sheer wordiness of it all).

Some interesting things though. You want to talk about targeting foreign nationals? Check out the amendments to Title V of the Fisa act, under section 215 of the patriot act.


`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.


Basically, as I read it - and as i've understood it to be in the past...

If you're an American - you have a first amendment right to say whatever the heck you want. If you're not "A United States Person" however, now saying something that may be disagreeable - can get you investigated big time.

Now, when you combine this with a few other privisions - such as what constitutes a potential threat? Well - any person discussing US Policy of State overseas for one. (read about that one a little bit ago, please don't make me go back and look it up - going cross-eyed as it is).

So - there ya go. You're not a "United States Person" - and say something we don't like, prepare to potentially have your life run through - and oh btw, since this is classified intelligence gathering, we're not required to tell anybody about it...

Imagine if they tried to do that to "A United States Person"?

justice4all
November 11, 2008, 10:50 PM
What is the definition of a United States Person?

mbt2001
November 11, 2008, 11:02 PM
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Listen to the voices people. The above is what we were founded on and what we believe in. Don't buy the arguments of seperation. Here, we believe in Liberty. Freedom. WE need to get back to those principles.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 11:40 PM
What is the definition of a United States Person?

That's a pretty good question huh? I didn't see that anywhere....

Gray Peterson
November 12, 2008, 01:19 AM
I am opposed to the US allowing its citizens to be citizens of another country simultaneously.

Ok, let's make something clear. Some countries DO NOT ALLOW you to renounce your citizenship. For example, if a Canadian citizen becomes an American citizen, ICE will require you to renounce your previous country's citizenship. However, under Canadian law you are NOT ALLOWED to renounce your citizenship for such reasons. The law requires that you notify the previous country of your intent. If there's nothing in their law to allow the renunciation to have any legal effect, what would you want the new American citizen to do? He can go to the Canadian consulates or embassy and yell until they are blue in the face, but they will not allow you to lose your citizenship.

MD_Willington
November 12, 2008, 10:49 AM
However, under Canadian law you are NOT ALLOWED to renounce your citizenship for such reasons. The law requires that you notify the previous country of your intent. If there's nothing in their law to allow the renunciation to have any legal effect, what would you want the new American citizen to do? He can go to the Canadian consulates or embassy and yell until they are blue in the face, but they will not allow you to lose your citizenship.

! BINGO !


This is what you get to look forward to if you renounce a Canadian citizenship:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/information/applications/renounce.asp

And here it is for UK citizenship
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/givingupcitizenship/

Bottom line, you cannot until someone gets their $100CDN in Canada and £385 in the UK, and all the paperwork is done.

MaterDei
November 12, 2008, 10:57 AM
Fair enough - but then the second part of the question, what implications does that pose to other efforts of national security?

The 19 immigrants that you referred to did nothing with firearms to hurt us. Your reasoning would lead to suggesting that immigrants should not be allowed on airplanes, not that they should be stripped of their God given rights.

Sinixstar, I think you're letting your anti-NRA bias cloud your judgement. If this case was filed by the GOA or SAF would you honestly still side with the antis?

justice4all
December 18, 2008, 12:59 AM
Anyone heard anything? The answer to the complaint should be long overdue, but it's not posted at the SAF website.

user3214
December 18, 2008, 04:45 PM
I found this page
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-wawdce/case_no-2:2008cv01613/case_id-155384/
it requires subscription to get more information about the case.

Otherwise try calling SAF

MD_Willington
December 18, 2008, 05:00 PM
Honestly, WA DOL is just being lazy asses, DOL can contact ICE who then in turn can do a check via NLETS. OR DOL can contact USCIS and get the background check.

I would NOT have a GREENCARD if I failed the background checks, in fact since I'm an honest guy and I'm jumping through the BS called immigration.. if I had failed my background checks I'd probably get the "Don't let the door hit you.." talk at the US/Canada border.

MD_Willington
December 18, 2008, 05:05 PM
PS - I called the NRA, SAF and Mr Coombes (Listed Plaintiff) a while back...

Nothing is happening right now.

PBinWA
December 18, 2008, 05:12 PM
Thanks for checking MD!

I'm on my second Alien Firearm License and previously had a CCW in WA too ( just let it expire because I didn't need it anymore). After jumping through all the hoops to get a Green Card I find it funny to think that this additional scrutiny is even necessary. It always seemed like bureaucratic waste to me. I doubt the effort involved is covered in the licensing fees.

user3214
December 18, 2008, 05:20 PM
State Response:
http://rapidshare.com/files/174667793/response.pdf.html

user3214
December 18, 2008, 06:42 PM
Mid Jan we'll know if the case goes forward or they reach an agreement.

justice4all
December 18, 2008, 07:14 PM
There's not really any room for a compromised agreement.

MD_Willington
December 19, 2008, 10:58 AM
FYI OT

Next time you leave the US as a green card holder in 2009, you'll be required to submit FULL finger prints at your port of re-entry, if you refuse, you get denied entry...

user3214
December 19, 2008, 02:01 PM
MD, isn't this if you leave for 6 months or more only?

justice4all
December 19, 2008, 02:16 PM
Yeah, it seems pretty cumbersome if someone just goes to Canada for a day trip.

The thing that bothers me most about the current law is that a Canadian, who has in no way emigrated to the US, can come to WA and hunt, but a green card holder, even one who has lived here for years and pays WA taxes all the time, cannot.

MD_Willington
December 19, 2008, 06:06 PM
The article I read stated no 6 month rule....


You're correct about hunting in WA, I know the local guy that teaches hunter training, I can go and do the course at his place, but I cannot do the practical part... not allowed access to firearms.. pretty dumb, I can however take my time and money to Idaho instead, which I routinely do.

I only shoot in Idaho now...

Tyris
December 19, 2008, 07:15 PM
I am opposed to the US allowing its citizens to be citizens of another country simultaneously.

I think Israel and AIPAC will squash your anti-dual citizenship rhetoric. They have far more pull than anti-foreigner gun owners.

-T

benEzra
December 19, 2008, 07:42 PM
If we all agree that the constitution does not start and stop with citizenship - what effect does that have on other legal initiatives?
It's a violation of the First Amendment to censor a blog written by a legal resident alien, to compel him/her to belong to a particular church, or to deny him/her the right to religious expression.

It's a violation of the Third Amendment to quarter troops in the home of a legal resident alien.

It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment to kick in the door of the residence of a legal resident alien without a warrant.

It's a violation of the Fifth Amendment to torture a legal resident alien as part of an interrogation, or to subject him/her to cruel and unusual punishment.

Hmmm, looks to me as though the Bill of Rights apply just as much to legal resident aliens in this country as it does to U.S. citizens.

Are you seriously arguing that legal resident aliens should NOT have equal protection under the Bill of Rights? Or were you just playing devil's advocate?

user3214
December 25, 2008, 03:29 PM
MD you were right here is the article with the comments bellow

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/25/1457214

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?no_d2=1&threshold=1&mode=flat&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=1073255

MD_Willington
December 25, 2008, 07:46 PM
Well I do not plan on leaving, actually I can't, my passport is expired, we're getting new ones ASAP... Passport Canada is just too damn picky about passport pictures though.

user3214
January 4, 2009, 04:41 AM
The latest action:

http://rapidshare.com/files/179610316/a1.pdf.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/179610402/a2.pdf.html

Looks like it's ordered for AFLs to be issued again

(Edited)

This is proposed not final.
So the State is filing for a dismissal (dismiss plaintiffs' civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim)
and
The plaintiff is filing for a preliminary injunction to 1) start issuing licenses 2) for the sheriff to ignore the AFL requirement when issuing CPL

Old Guy
January 4, 2009, 08:06 AM
I came into the country with dual citizenship already under my belt... who says I'll keep the others once I'm sworn in as a US citizen ??

MD Same here... Now the big step... After being a Legal Permanent Resident for 5 years, you apply for and are granted US Citizenship?

One minute after that, you are now legal in your adopted State to have a CCW! With no extra form or License, silly rule!

What has changed? Nothing! All of the information for US Citizenship, more or less is from your original application for your Green Card, on file (a huge file!) punching you into NCIC and CIPIC takes ten seconds, will show No wants or Warrants here in the US, no arrests or convictions in Canada or with some different key strokes your Brit no conviction status also.

Sebastian the Ibis
January 4, 2009, 12:54 PM
States cannot discriminate against aliens, except in very narrow circumstances like being a police officer. If states could pass laws against aliens haphazardly (Rent apartment/not rent, Drive/No Driving, Get Fishing license/ not get fishing license etc.) you would basically have states making their own foreign policy, which screws up the whole separation of powers. See e.g. Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 419 (1948) ("The Federal Government has broad constitutional powers in determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they may remain, regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization. See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 312 U. S. 66. Under the Constitution, the states are granted no such powers; they can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states. State laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully within the United States conflict with this constitutionally derived federal power to regulate immigration, and have accordingly been held invalid.")

user3214
January 4, 2009, 06:01 PM
Here is the plaintiffs’ case and the proposed preliminary injunction

http://rapidshare.com/files/179822348/case.pdf.html

MD_Willington
January 4, 2009, 06:46 PM
One could hope they just drop the retarded AFL for green card holders...

MD_Willington
January 4, 2009, 09:16 PM
Ok, so when can I apply... my birthday in on the 10th, can I go in around there and apply for my Birthday??



Never mind, it is only going to court later this month...

I need to contact my reps to get them on the ball too as they too had some ideas of what to do on this issue.

user3214
January 6, 2009, 08:05 PM
Sad news, the latest doc is here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/180543040/doc1.pdf.html

It looks like the case was dismissed, and that's it. There is no resolution to the issue for now.

justice4all
January 6, 2009, 09:31 PM
It appears that the case was only dismissed as against the state, not the other defendants. But I'm confused as to what's going on here.

user3214
January 6, 2009, 10:46 PM
You might be right, but why would the case against WA be dismissed.

The AFL is a state law after all. Maybe the AFL law itself is not targeted. (I thought it was though)

MD_Willington
January 7, 2009, 06:24 AM
If that is the case, get a hold of your state reps now...

cubanitojr
January 7, 2009, 02:53 PM
Does it really mean the case is OVER?

I just called SAF, the Gentleman I talked to did not have any details on whats going on. I just gave him the link to this forum.


Dear Mr. Hunter.

We e-mailed back and forth last year on the Alien Firearm Issue. As you may recall, Green card holders residents of the state of WA, do require an Alien's Firearm License, the DOL can not issue it because is not considered a Criminal Agency by the FBI as they state in this link http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faalien.html It is a Catch-22 situation. You can only start the citizenship application only after 5 years of being a greencard holder (No way around this requirement, just plain Inmigration law) in my case,I could apply for citizenship only by the end of 2010.

It is finally January 2009.

There is civil lawsuit going on vs. State of Washington, DOL Director and Issaquah Sheriff, here is a forum link with detailed information. I thought it would be helpful.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=405574&page=3

* How can you help law abiding greencard holders obtaining the AFL?
* Is there any new law on the works to fix this issue?
* What happened with bill ESHB 3148?

I really do not want to miss hunting season this year, also have farm land on eastern WA country side, as you may understand owning a rifle, may come useful for me in order to protect my family and private property. Never had this issue when I lived in California, since there Greencard holders enjoy the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of the this beautiful country constitution.


My apologies for the sermon.

Best Regards,


:-)


The email above my response to the email below:


June 6, 2008

The solution to this problem is to move the responsibility for issuing these permits from DOL to the State Patrol. Since it will involve moving staff around this may be difficult. The inertia that these people create is painful. I will get one of the guys who work on gun issues to work through this and make sure they get it right.



I tend to irritate the pro-gun people, so it’s better if I’m not the guy working it. I don’t have any issues with this – I’m sure the people who actually apply for these licenses do not cause much problem, and probably generate some revenue for parts of the state that could use it.



We can’t do anything until January. You’ll miss hunting season this year. Sorry. You should apply for citizenship at some point and avoid this hassle.



Representative Ross Hunter
Finance Committee Chairman

333 John L. O'Brien Building
Capitol Campus
Olympia, WA 98504
(360) 786-7936 Olympia Office
(425) 453-3064 District Office

MD_Willington
January 7, 2009, 07:35 PM
Apparently the case is still going ahead, you can call the NRA regarding this..

PS..

I'm a member of both the SAF & the NRA now...

ants
January 7, 2009, 08:16 PM
Rep. Ross Hunter said:
The solution to this problem is to move the responsibility for issuing these permits from DOL to the State Patrol. No, the solution is to eliminate the license altogether.

junglejimi
January 8, 2009, 01:08 AM
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness---
My justification for being an American RifleMan.....

MD_Willington
January 8, 2009, 03:50 AM
ants, your right, but until then, the easiest route is to have my local Sheriff handle the AFL just like my CPL or the WSP handle the license as both are allowed access to NLETS.

Further more, the FBI could stop being useless and allow the DOL to use the NLETS info, just like in my letter submitted to the FBI via Cathy McMorris Rogers and per Ross Hunters work.

DOL has been called a LEO agency regarding the back ground checks just like the FBI wanted, but as soon as the AFL issue comes up the FBI pull a JF Kerry and flip flop.

justice4all
January 8, 2009, 09:50 AM
The whole licensing procedure needs to go, not be reinstated. I sincerely hope that that is the outcome of the lawsuit, but perhaps that will be compromised away.

Old Guy
January 8, 2009, 12:32 PM
As a Canadian Citizen, rubbing borders for thirty years, I think we should be able to apply for American Citizenship after two years with a green card! Why not, it is the same dirt and water we share.

Would not all you nice Americans love to have a Brit/Canadian, who spent time in the Brit Army as a Citizen? Ex Firearms Instructor, worked for Glock.

Well what do you think?

user3214
January 8, 2009, 06:11 PM
Here is the new 2009 bill (overdue for 3 years now) that would fix the issue and eliminate the AFL for green card holders, if passed

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1052&year=2009

MD_Willington
January 8, 2009, 07:03 PM
Next session starts on the 14th, get sending the bill number to your reps ASAP...

Looks like it is Scheduled for the 15th... get going Go, Go, Go !!!

MD_Willington
January 9, 2009, 02:06 PM
RE HB1052 support...


Matt,

Senator Schoesler asked me to let you know that he will be a strong "YES" vote on this issue if it comes to the floor for consideration this session. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

Krista Winters
Legislative Aide to
Senator Mark Schoesler

user3214
January 9, 2009, 06:26 PM
In the past years the bill failed because it wasn't called by the speaker.

Otherwise I believe it would have passed back then.

The trick would be to contact the chair/speaker or someone who would bring it up to a vote.

user3214
January 9, 2009, 06:29 PM
On the lawsuit the chief has answered the complaint stating, some of defendants don’t live in his jurisdiction so he can’t violate their rights.
The one defendant living in his jurisdiction would be issued a license if he gets an AFL.

MD_Willington
January 10, 2009, 02:08 AM
That's <nonsense>... It violates all of our rights...

Gungnir
January 11, 2009, 12:57 PM
Sent this to my representatives, and senator

RE: HB 1052 as sponsored by Representative Moeller

This bill has been proposed to try to eliminate the Catch-22 situation that currently exists in possession of Firearms by both Legal Permanent Resident Aliens and Non-Immigrant aliens, by requiring an Alien Firearms License that cannot be issued by the issuing body.

As an LPR I believe that the current situation violates my second amendment rights, as given by the 14th amendment for equal protection and due process. This view is also held by the National Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation who are currently pursuing this through the State Federal Court.

It appears that the reading of this bill is scheduled for Jan 15th, given the current legal action being taken against the state it would seem prudent to both ensure that this bill is heard and ratified at the first opportunity.

Thank you for your time.

kurtmax
January 11, 2009, 02:06 PM
Technically the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, whether they reside in the US or not. They are preexisting according to the document.

There is no reason why anyone in this country should not have them apply. Period. End of discussion. Ktxhbye ;)

MD_Willington
January 12, 2009, 02:51 AM
Sent and received the following:


from MD Willington
to "Hunter, Ross"
date Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:19 AM
subject Re: WA State Alien Firearms Issue with FBI

Hello, been a while.

Please look at HB 1052 as a means of clearing up the AFL issue.

I hope 2009 is going well for you!

Later

MD



Yes – I have worked with Rep. Blake and Moeller to get this to work. I do not expect this to be a problem.

Ross

Gungnir
January 12, 2009, 10:32 AM
Well let's hope that the General legislature don't bury their heads in the sand and try to ignore this issue for the 3rd/4th year in a row.

Maybe the threat of the SAF/NRA bearing down might make this a priority this session.

MD_Willington
January 12, 2009, 05:13 PM
I know this is mixing the lawsuit with the HB1052, but I was contacted by another of my local reps today. I'm guessing he'll be on board too.

We really need a lot of WA State LPR's and residents to contact their reps and get them in favor too.

godsdog
January 12, 2009, 05:34 PM
I am in this situation. I am a "Permanent Resident" of the U.S. which is the next step up from "resident alien". I have had a Alien Firearms Licence and Wa. State conceald carry for over 10 years. Suddenly because the state changes it's laws I have to get rid of all my firearms or move to another state or become a fellon? It's not right. Please support us on this issue. I am a tax paying U.S. Merchant Mariner, I have 4 different security clearences, including a T.S.A. issued ID. We should at least be Grand Farthered in... we need support on this one ...

Gungnir
January 13, 2009, 02:43 AM
WA State HB 1052

Sponsors: Representatives Moeller, Williams, Blake, Chase, Kretz

Chase is one of my representatives, but in 1 day it's had an increase of 4 sponsors.

Thought you'd like to know.

MD_Willington
January 13, 2009, 11:07 AM
Moeller, Williams, Blake, Chase, Kretz, Hunter, Schmick, Schoesler.

Not bad, only 2 days to go...

cubanitojr
January 13, 2009, 03:32 PM
It says the bill is scheduled for a public hearing. Are they making the decision or voting on the 15th? If so, when does it becomes effective?

Thanks.

:cool:

MD_Willington
January 13, 2009, 04:40 PM
I'll ask some of my reps.

MD_Willington
January 14, 2009, 08:53 PM
The lawsuit will be moot if 1052 passes... contact these people asap and ask them to support HB1052

House Committee on Judiciary members and contact information:

Representative Steve Kirby
Democrat
Tacoma
(360) 786-7996
Kirby.Steve@leg.wa.gov

Representative Dennis Flannigan
Democrat
Tacoma
(360) 786-7930
Flannigan.Dennis@leg.wa.gov

Representative Timm Ormsby
Democrat
Spokane
(360) 786-7946
Ormsby.Timm@leg.wa.gov

Representative Jay Rodne
Republican
North Bend
(360) 786-7852
Rodne.Jay@leg.wa.gov

Representative Mary Helen Roberts
Democrat
Lynnwood
(360) 786-7950
Roberts.MaryHelen@leg.wa.gov

Representative Roger Goodman
Democrat
Kirkland
(360) 786-7878
Goodman.Roger@leg.wa.gov

Representative Troy Kelley
Democrat
Tacoma
(360) 786-7890
Kelley.Troy@leg.wa.gov

Representative Jamie Pedersen
Democrat
Seattle
(360) 786-7826
Pedersen.Jamie@leg.wa.gov

Representative Charles Ross
Republican
Naches
(360) 786-7856
Ross.Charles@leg.wa.gov

Representative Judy Warnick
Republican
Moses Lake
(360) 786-7932
Warnick.J@leg.wa.gov

Representative Matthew Shea
Republican
Mead
(360) 786-7984
Shea.Matt@leg.wa.gov

MD_Willington
January 15, 2009, 04:15 PM
HB1052 is going to the House Committee on Judiciary members January 22, the day before the NRA lawsuit.

If HB1052 gets pushed through, the effective date is "IMMEDIATELY" because the bill contains an emergency clause, which would render the lawsuit MOOT... convenient since WA State DOL will not receive any bad PR press.

PLEASE contact the House Committee on Judiciary members and ask them to support HB1052.

Gungnir
January 15, 2009, 06:16 PM
Sent them all a "please support this".

Question is though not sure about WA procedure on this, what happens once this has gone through the Executive session Committee meeting, from what I understand, it needs to be referred to the Rules Committee and a 2nd and 3rd house reading for this being ratified. Unless there's something about an Executive Session of a committee that allows them to "pass" the bill.

If on Jan 23rd the Federal Judge issues immediate injunctive relief from RCW 9.41.170 (as happened in the original filing in Dec, and I expect the SAF/NRA to be requesting) then that will make interesting times here.

Gungnir
January 15, 2009, 08:28 PM
Reply from Matt Shea

Thank you for your input on this important legislation. I am currently favoring the intent of this bill but I am still examining the language of the bill.Thank you for sharing your views with me.
Rep Matt Shea
4th Legislative District
(360) 786-7984

user3214
January 15, 2009, 08:37 PM
I believe Executive Session means that the meeting will be held in secret.
All bills become laws on certain date; the emergency clause means that the bill would become a law the moment singed by the governor (the same clause was in one of the previous bills and it didn’t pass, so it doesn’t mean much to the legislators I guess)

If the bill passes 3 reading it gets sent to the Senate, there it needs to pass 3 readings again. If a change is made in either chamber, the bill has to be sent over to the other for approval of the changes. A bill could die by not being called for a reading (that’s what happened to the previous bills). After a bill passes both chambers it is usually singed by the governor and becomes a law.

I think what SAF/NRA want at the moment is for the DOL to start issuing licenses again (that’s their preliminary injunction). So even if it’s granted you’d still need an AFL.

MD_Willington
January 15, 2009, 09:17 PM
The bill summary states LPRs would be exempt...i.e. not required to get a license as it is unconstitutional to license a right.. yeah I know, they still license carry permits...

BTW Rep Roberts staff member called, Roberts is in favor of 1052...

Gungnir
January 15, 2009, 10:02 PM
I think user3214 was referring to an immediate injunctive relief for Aliens (regardless of status permanent or nonresident) to receive AFL's IF the need is there before the end of the NRA/SAF lawsuit. Which while not ideal at least restores SOME of my constitutional rights.

If HB1052 is passed I have the same 2A rights as any US Citizen, reading the language and the Judiciary report makes that very clear.

So depending on context you're both correct; if I'm reading your contexts correctly :)

MD_Willington
January 15, 2009, 10:28 PM
You already do have those rights, with the exception of voting, the moment some .gov employee said "issue the green card"...

WA is openly defying this with the AFL debacle to begin with.

Gungnir
January 15, 2009, 10:40 PM
Don't need to tell me that, I'm boning up for my civics, since I got my Biometrics Appointment for Citizenship this is a complete infringement of 2nd/14th and probably a bunch of other rights I have. Next the state will begin stationing active troops in my house, without compensation, illegally searching my home, and banning me from speaking my mind, while ordering me to my local Presbyterian for Sunday Service.

While incredibly frustrated with this situation, I still find this amusing on a cosmic level as looking at the citizenship test on civics where the question is
"what rights are conferred on a person through citizenship"
the answer is
"the right to vote, and the right to run for public office"

So apparently someone who initiated RCW 9.41.170 would have failed the civics section of the citizenship test. Which I think is totally ironic.

user3214
January 16, 2009, 01:16 AM
Truly is sad, everyone should be equal under the law, but that’s not the way it works.

If you break the law you pay, go to jail, lose your rights to vote or have a firearms, pay a fine etc.
If you're a government official and deny someone's rights, the most is - that official will be fined and the money will come out of the pockets of the tax-paying people.

MD_Willington
January 19, 2009, 12:56 PM
From a friend..


Team;

As far as I now, ‘we’ are still scheduled for our motion for a preliminary injunction to be heard in court Friday 23rd.

As soon as I hear anything I will pass it on.

Regards;

Gungnir
January 19, 2009, 01:13 PM
Cool, hope this passes and the State AG doesn't pull another fast one.

Wonder how the injunction if it is accepted will be worded, another "Issue AFL immediately" to the DOL, or something more meaningful.

MD_Willington
January 19, 2009, 03:46 PM
The way I understand it, if it goes through, it is essentially a get out of felony free card, no law enforcement entity will be able to enforce the law for a green card holder at least...

Gungnir
January 19, 2009, 04:12 PM
If that's the case then cool.

Wonder if I can apply for a CCL on the 23rd then. Let me know, and I'll take a trip to my local Sheriff, I'll let you know the results...

MD_Willington
January 19, 2009, 09:15 PM
You probably will not be able to until there is an official verdict...

You know Kentucky had to drop the green card requirement for their concealed carry, it went to court and the judge was in favor of the plaintiff... fingers crossed here!

Gungnir
January 19, 2009, 09:40 PM
I wasn't really serious, I'd rather not upset the local LEO's before I get citizenship :)

Although there is this mischievous voice that is urging me to do it, if only to see what they say.

MD_Willington
January 20, 2009, 02:35 PM
LOL..

If I was aware of all this mess when my green card was issued, I would have done the AFL paperwork the very day I received my green card in the mail, they were still issuing them when I received my green card...

Gungnir
January 20, 2009, 03:59 PM
I got my GC in Feb 2006 probationary LPR from 2005 (Marriage to US Citizen) not sure whether this was before or after the date the DOL hit the wall, I know when I arrived in 2001 that was way before the DOL hit the wall, so maybe I should have applied then, since LPR's had/have the same status as Nonresident Aliens according to the AFL.

But had I thought about it then, then things might be a little less irritating, but it wasn't as high on my list of priorities then. When it became a priority, I was a little surprised by the whole AFL deal for LPR's.

MD_Willington
January 20, 2009, 08:08 PM
NRA lawsuit may be our only chance...

received this in a email today..


This bill was pulled from the hearing schedule.
I need to call on it and find out what that means and why.
Main thing is it is very early in session, so we have lots of time.
Give me until tomorrow to figure this one out.

armedandsafe
January 21, 2009, 01:00 AM
I just sent that note to all three of my reps. Hinkle, Warnick and Holmguist

Pops

Gungnir
January 21, 2009, 01:53 AM
To cross post from the Activism thread on this.

From Rep. Jim Moeller (Primary sponsor of hb1052)

Hi:
The executive session has been delayed to take advantage of another
opportunity to group the bill with another. I have assurance from the
chair that the bill will be exec from committee. Thanks for your
interest.
-jm


I think (reading between the lines) they're trying to rationalize SR5195 and HB1052 into a single bill. We'll see over the next few days I guess.

Here's a link to the Activism thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=418617)

MD_Willington
January 21, 2009, 01:55 PM
More news


The State and the City of Issaquah have agreed to let the court enter the preliminary injunction we wanted, without a fight. The injunction will require the State to process applications for alien firearms licenses, and issue them to qualified applicants, regardless of whether they can do the federal background check or not. We'll send everyone a copy of the preliminary injunction when it's language is finalized. So no hearing will be needed on Friday the 23rd.


I'm no legal scholar, hopefully this means what I think it means :D

Gungnir
January 21, 2009, 02:03 PM
It means that the injunction (if it comes into effect) forces the DOL to release an AFL according to RWC 9.41.170 whether or not they can process a FBI background check (depending on how stubborn the DOL is they might issue that request anyway, to delay release of the license). My expectation is that means that the processing will be identical otherwise.

It's a start...

MD_Willington
January 21, 2009, 02:57 PM
Another update.. what a roller coaster...

It WILL be heard on the 23rd...

Gungnir
January 21, 2009, 03:01 PM
So if the defendants have agreed that this injunction go through, then why waste the courts time?

Hmm...

cubanitojr
January 23, 2009, 03:33 PM
I got this reply from Sen Rodney Tom.

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you regarding House Bill 1052; Concerning firearm licenses for persons from other countries.

HB 1052 currently sits in the House Judiciary committee and I have not had the opportunity to look at it. However, I will make a thorough review of this bills as it comes across my desk.

Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have any further questions, comments or concerns.

I look forward to your continued thoughts and input.

think Peace!

Rodney Tom
State Senator
p 360.786.7694
o 800.562.6000 hotline
e tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov
w http://www.sdc.wa.gov/tom.htm

user3214
January 23, 2009, 03:48 PM
Joint report is ready the case would be ready for trial on Aug. 1 2009 challenging the legality of AFL.

There is a chance that by that time the legislature may scarp them (with the proposed bill)

Meanwhile if the injunction is signed the DOL will resume issuing AFLs even without the federal background check.

cubanitojr
January 23, 2009, 04:02 PM
Is this injunction supposed to be signed this Friday 23? (today)

If so, that would mean, I could apply Monday. Please, correct me if I am wrong...

user3214
January 23, 2009, 04:27 PM
Yes. Here is the pdf with the injunction.

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 04:33 PM
OK so as of Monday I can apply...

Why not Tomorrow?
Why not tonight?

user3214
January 23, 2009, 04:37 PM
I think you can apply even now, call them up and ask (DOL).

The application will just wait until it's clear from the judge.

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 04:50 PM
So Judge is expected to sign this today, since there is not contest by the defendants.

If I could get an AFL form (since the DOL removed it), then I could apply tonight.

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 04:55 PM
So I also rang the DOL, who can't comment on the Lawsuit. But apparently will not issue the Application packs until the injunction is applied (which is totally weird, since giving me an AFL application pack is not against any law AFAIK).

MD_Willington
January 23, 2009, 05:19 PM
Would this be of any use to you?

Anyone else have the other parts of the license package.. I've looked all over for it...

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 05:31 PM
ROFL I'm pretty sure it will.

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 05:42 PM
Unless there's something else I need... That isn't here.

MD_Willington
January 23, 2009, 05:57 PM
I have the entire package now, I got it from the way back machine...

I cannot attach it as it is bigger than allowed for this forum.

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 05:59 PM
Ok then if I fill in the AFL Application and take it to my local Sheriff then will I be missing anything?

MD_Willington
January 23, 2009, 06:14 PM
I scanned the package I have, not sure if it is the latest but its all there...

cubanitojr
January 23, 2009, 06:27 PM
Just contacted the DOL few mins ago, the told me there is something going on in the legislature and I will have to wait until March. I mentioned the judge order (Effective today) issue, but she was totally unaware of it.

:confused:

MD_Willington
January 23, 2009, 06:44 PM
Okay so here is the deal, the Judge has not signed the injunction yet, could be next week, HB1052 is also being looked at next week, so it would make sense the DOL is saying that.

Anyway, the HB will take a while to process, now if the Judge signs the injunction Monday morning then DOL will have to start processing licenses and they will have to put the AFL package back up on their website..

I do not hold much faith in the DOL and I see them as taking their sweet time getting their crap together.

In the meantime, print out the package, contact your consulate, you need their reply for #4 of the 4 pieces of info to send...

user3214
January 23, 2009, 06:53 PM
Joint Report pdf

MD_Willington
January 23, 2009, 07:16 PM
Eh! So what does this one mean?

Does it mean they are taking on the RCW to get LPRs dropped from having to obtain an AFL?? :scrutiny:

user3214
January 23, 2009, 07:31 PM
Yep that's the ultimate goal. Drop AFLs for GC holders

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 08:05 PM
Yes that's part of the injunctive relief they're discussing. Since I have a bit of money I subscribed to Pacer, and I'm following the paper trail.

Line 3
The State does not impose either (to hold a License) of these requirements on U.S. Citizens resident in Washington.
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of RCW 9.41.070 and RCW 9.41.170, and cotend that those statutes violate the Civil rights act, 42 U.S.C. 1981(a).

Line 16
Finally, plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting the Chief of Police of the City of Issaquah and the State of Washington and its political subdivisions, from enforcing RCW 9.41.170's requirement that permanent lawfully resident aliens obtain an alien firearms license, and RCW 9.41.070(4)'s requirement that they possess such a license as a condition to obtaining a concealed pistol license.

So if signed, we're reinstated (for the trial period) with full 2A rights.

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 08:26 PM
Oh this is interesting...

UK Consul in Seattle is closed :)
According to the Application instructions you need a certified copy of your criminal history or lack thereof from your home countries consulate on the consulates letterhead paper, and performed in the last 6 months.

However RCW 9.41.170
(2)(a) Subject to the additional requirements of (b) of this subsection, the director of licensing may issue an alien firearm license without a certified copy of the alien's criminal history or the consul's attestation required by subsection (1) of this section, if the alien has been a resident of this state for at least two years and: (i) The alien is from a country without a consul domiciled within this state, or (ii) the consul has failed to provide, within ninety days after a request by the alien, the criminal history or attestation required by subsection (1) of this section.

PBinWA
January 23, 2009, 08:45 PM
Here's the English pages from the WA State Alien Firearm License Application in their original PDF format. I have the Cambodian, Vietnamese, Russian, Spanish, ... pages if anyone wants them. Just PM me.

For the record, the two times I went through this I would send the letter to my consulate (Canadian) requesting the info (background check, etc) and they would send me back a letter stating that they don't do that. I then sent that letter on to the DOL with my completed application and that was good enough.

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 09:39 PM
Yeah, but I don't have a consulate in WA state :)

I might send the letter stating
pusuant to RCW 9.41.170, I have been a WA resident for more than 2 years, and Washington state has no UK consulate at this time. Thus the information requested is not pertinent to this application.

See how the DOL likes those potatoes

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 10:12 PM
So do we know whether the Judge signed the injunction yet?

PBinWA
January 23, 2009, 11:06 PM
Yeah, but I don't have a consulate in WA state


Find the consulate that has jurisdiction over WA state. You should jump through the hoops if at all possible - the bureaucrats live for this crap and it is in YOUR best interests to not give them a reason to deny your application.

Gungnir
January 23, 2009, 11:18 PM
Yeah I know, had to jump through many hoops for my Green Card.

MD_Willington
January 24, 2009, 12:47 AM
Here's how I received my original background check form Canada, follow me here, as this was the phone call..

Me "Hey Stu, I need a background check" <-- Stu = RCMP officer married to my wife's aunt...

Stu " What do you want me to send you, a blank piece of paper?"

Me " Sure, as long as it has your RCMP letterhead and you explain I have no criminal record anywhere in Canada" <-- Because I have absolutely NO criminal record in Canada...

Stu " Alright, where do I mail it to"

And that was pretty much it... back in 2002. In life it tends to be WHO you know and not WHAT you know...


Fast forward to 2006, I mailed a letter certified to the Canadian consulate in Seattle, and they send back a letter stating, "We don't do that"... but that is all I need from them...

DOL says, "We cannot process.. blah blah blah..."

Gungnir
January 24, 2009, 01:04 AM
Actually, what's funny from the UK side, is if they give ANY information at all, they're in breach of the UK data protection act, and I can sue them :D

I suspect that the response I'll get from San-Fran UK Consulate is, I'm sorry we don't do that.

MD_Willington
January 24, 2009, 02:15 AM
That is all you need... so just "Get r Done" !!

I'm going to send mine off ASAP... I mean even if I get the sod'd piece of paper from DOL and the HB's go through and the other court case go's our way, I've still covered my butt and can go get my stuff from my friends place and bring it back to my house.

And I can pick up a little something my friend has been holding for me.. Russian SKS!

Gungnir
January 24, 2009, 02:21 AM
ROFL... The mail's already sent, I can just see some confused Brit Diplo, looking at it, and saying, we don't do this, and how do we know who this person is?

Oh and no just for the record I don't have any criminal record, the NIS (Scotland yard) report on me is totally clean. Well I have a green card, so the FBI and US intelligence has already cleared me, so you probably guessed that.

MD_Willington
January 24, 2009, 10:59 PM
ROFL... The mail's already sent, I can just see some confused Brit Diplo, looking at it, and saying, we don't do this, and how do we know who this person is?


That is perfectly legit and it says so on the form, my letter from the Canadian consulate says just that, "Sorry we do not do that"... and that is just fine.

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 12:10 AM
Any further news on this, I meant to call the SAF about this today, but work got in the way.

Mortech
January 27, 2009, 12:19 AM
About damn time you guys were cut some slack , I think its totally wrong that WA would deny your guys the right to protect yourselves (my wife is lucky she has dual citizenship)

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 12:22 AM
I'll be naturalized probably before this is sorted out, on the plus side, it beats the heck out of reading the USCIS guide to civics.

MD_Willington
January 27, 2009, 02:12 AM
Yeah I can wait to if need be, there are those however that need this fixed ASAP as it affects their profession and the natural born citizens they are married to, as they quite possibly be charged as some kind of accessory if their non-citizen spouse gets a hold of stored firearms in their home.

In other words it removes the rights of a natural born citizen too, it is in fact an underhanded version of gun control if you think of it in that regard.

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 10:38 AM
My wife agree's with you, on the Gun Control front. Weighing self protection with protection of herself and her husband to comply with an illegal law.

Of course she's rapidly approaching preferring FL to WA and she hates bright sunshine, heat, and humidity :)

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 11:41 AM
Hmm, just a thought, we could en-masse send messages to the Govenor. She could fix the AFL deadlock with a stroke of her pen.

Especially since there are some of us who have S.O. US Citizens who are having their rights infringed because of the risk to their Alien spouse.

Its possible that lobbying to her on WA State infractions of the Constitution might have an impact

There are others who previously held an AFL that ran out after the DOL stopped issuing. Who had to do some tricks to avoid conflict with the law too.

I'd like the RCW to go away entirely, but if we can work around the problem, then it gives us a better case to eliminate it.

Or maybe I'm just an optimist.

cdninusa
January 27, 2009, 12:29 PM
does anyone know what the status of the injunction is, or where I can look to see its progress? thx

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 01:40 PM
Nope, just called SAF to find out.

I'll update when they reply.

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 01:47 PM
Ok NRA response

Judge is bogged down and hasn't yet signed the injunction.

It's no contest, so I don't know what the hold up is. Expectation is it will be signed this week. At worst early next week.

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 02:31 PM
SAF confirmed just waiting on the Judge.

MD_Willington
January 27, 2009, 02:44 PM
Well you still need to contact your consulate, so this would be the time to fire off a letter to your Consulate.

Update for Canadians.

The address for the Canadian Consulate in Seattle has changed:

New Address.

Canadian Consulate General
Consular Affairs
1501 - 4th Ave., Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101-4328


Letters are here for Canadians LPRs

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5285809&postcount=42

cdninusa
January 27, 2009, 02:45 PM
http://dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faalien.html not responding all morning.

could it be a sign it is being updated?

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 02:58 PM
Also could be a sign that they have site troubles.

Since the DOL didn't contest this injunction, they have no rational reason to delay issuing AFL's since the Judge signature is a given. Yet Friday, and Monday both had DOL employees denying any change in the status of the AFL.

Thus my suspicion that the AFL will only begin to be reissued once the Judge has signed.

MD_Willington
January 27, 2009, 03:25 PM
Yep, pretty much...

Just had an interesting phone call with an ICE agent at the USICE Law Enforcement Center in VT...

I mentioned I was looking for background check info as I was a green card holder and I explained WA was the only state with the AFL for green card holders...

The ICE agent expressed that the law & license was "Bologne!" and that the FBI saying DOL could not have NLETS information was... wait for it... "Bologne!"... LOL


Also, check with your local law enforcement agencies, they "haven't got the memo" either regarding AFLs..

I'm going to call my Sheriff directly and not a deputy and give him the 411 on the situation...

Once again, its not what you know but WHO you know... I know the Sheriff, he's friends with some of my friends...

Good Luck!

waverace
January 27, 2009, 04:08 PM
I still say wait off on applying for the AFL if we all bow down and apply they may just leave it at that HB1052 needs to pass then we are free from this scurge for good , or at least until everyone has to be licenced .
P.S that link to the "sorry we are incompetent" page seems to be working

cubanitojr
January 27, 2009, 04:35 PM
The judge knows his signature will have an impact on Olympia and will put WA on the news headlines, besides there may be a risk of DOL issuing licences without checking federal background, for the case of LPR is low, but considering the paranoia around firearms it has some merit. The point is that federal law outweights state's, WA legislature does not have the right of infringing 2nd amendment to LPR's or married US citizens to Aliens.

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 04:45 PM
Actually MD it's not really Bologne on the AFL FBI check.

If I remember the facts:

DOL Issued through WSP an FBI Background Check.
WSP initially supplied a Summary of the FBI information.
The Director of the DOL demanded to see the full FBI reports (which under Federal law can't be issued to a non-LE agency, I suspect it's either a privacy thing, or there's more to the report than might be considered appropriate, I've never seen one so I don't know) since the Summary didn't give the information they felt they required for the permit.
WSP Complied.
The FBI found out this was happening, and refused any background checks for the purpose of the AFL. I assume the FBI have a purpose field in their background check input.
Washington State then is a fit of pure logic then defined the DOL as a LE organization.
The FBI failed to recognize this (I guess if it's a pig, calling it an Elephant doesn't make it and elephant), since it was a very Naive attempt to get around the situation.

And here we are.

I could be wrong, this might be hearsay, but considering the current situation, it might be close to the truth. Ultimately this is a failure of Washington State, for having a totally discriminatory law on the books, that collectively gives aliens (regardless of status) the same firearms rights as convicted Felons (in direct contravention of Civil Rights legislation and the 14th Amendment). At the same time as restricting US Citizens who are married to those aliens from exercising their right to self defense with a firearm.

cdninusa
January 27, 2009, 04:49 PM
Just curious (I joined this late, so not sure if this has already been covered - if so, my apologies)...

Has anyone done a FOIA request to get the official communication from the FBI to the DOL that states they will not provide BG checks to DOL for AFL? There should be one.

I ask because an earlier post seems to indicate there may not have been one.

I would hope DOL wouldn't change their policy on issuing AFL's based on a phone call or other such informal communication.

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 05:12 PM
Oh this is from the DOL themselves

In May, 2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted an audit and found local law enforcement agencies were using the Immigration Alien Query, National Criminal Information Center and Interstate Identification Index, as part of the background check process for approving alien firearms licenses. The FBI informed those agencies that federal law prohibits the use of these databases for secondhand dissemination of the criminal history to a non-criminal justice agency (i.e. Department of Licensing) for license issuance.
Without these checks, law enforcement is unable to meet the requirements of state law to determine if an applicant is lawfully present in the United States and may lawfully possess a firearm. Without this approval from local law enforcement, the Department of Licensing is unable by law to issue the license.

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 05:19 PM
That's part of the refund letter request.

Guess they've never heard of the NICS, since Aliens are checked at time of purchase to ensure they're legal.

Any FFL registered individual can issue a NICS Call, with the Alien # from their green card and get a go-no-go quickly.

MD_Willington
January 27, 2009, 05:30 PM
Regardless, I'm still going to see if I can throw some money at this and get a license ASAP even before the court case in August...

Lets face it, its too cold to shoot right now, but its going to warm up between now and August !


RE the IAQ check.

That statement looks confusing regarding the IAQ.

If you look at the AFL form on the back, your local LEO does the IAQ, they then mark it "Approved" or "Denied" on the form...
Here it is:

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY
DATA BASE DATE CHECKED BY
 WASIS/NCIC III
 WACIC/NCIC
 Warrant File
 DOL Firearms File
 DSHS
 Local Check
 IAQ
 Approved  Denied LEA Name Date

I just confirmed this with the Sheriffs office. I have also mailed my letter to the consulate and contacted my Sheriff and he has just replied to me.


Once we are given any direction in this matter we will start adhering to the law, whatever it may be.


Anyway, I have my corporate lawyer looking into getting me a recent copy of my background check from USICS too.


The background check message I have from the FBI says that DOL cannot access the information available from NLETS.. Now why the sheriffs department cannot just go ahead and do the NLETS check for DOL, I have no friggin clue, the Sheriffs office CAN do it for DOL and mark a little box...

http://www.nlets.org/WhatWeDo.aspx

Now if you want to contact WA State NLETS rep you can go here:
http://www.nlets.org/memberreplocatordetail.aspx?MemberId=535

waverace
January 27, 2009, 05:32 PM
well if thats the case and the fact that in order to get a green card ,home country background checks have been done , where is the problem ?
I'll tell you where it is , when the bill was originally passed the lawmakers didnt even consider the implications of the wording , they intended to make it possible for visitors to partake in hunting and sporting activity , they didnt consider LPR's as aliens but the wording non citizen in the technical sense excludes them , they needed to write it as non immigrant , unfortunately a lack of thought and or understanding of immigration law led to what boils down to a typo ! but once a bill is signed into law thats how it stands till it is changed through the process of legislation .
I'm pretty sure that they lumped LPR's in with citizens without knowing or thinking that they are not in the eyes of immigration law classed as citizens .

cdninusa
January 27, 2009, 05:39 PM
"The FBI informed those agencies that federal law prohibits the use of these databases for secondhand dissemination of the criminal history to a non-criminal justice agency (i.e. Department of Licensing) for license issuance."

there should be an official communication on record of the above. It should be available (if it exists) through a FOIA request (which, generally are free).

I also wonder why the local LE can't just issue the request instead of the DOL.

user3214
January 27, 2009, 05:44 PM
My understanding is that DOL can't even get that summary (ie. Approved/Denied) - non-of thier business

waverace
January 27, 2009, 05:57 PM
Heres an idea , why doesnt the DOL apply for a FFL , that way they could do their own in house NICS checks , as for country of origin checks , they dont need to , the dept of homeland security has already done that for them and issued an ok certificate , THE GREEN CARD ! That just leaves one problem , fake green cards but if anyone has seen a new green card they would not be easy to fake its not like a credit card , there are all sorts of holograms and microstencils and such , would be a nightmare to fake .
Bottom line pass 1052 get the legal residents off their backs and get on with real security issues .

cubanitojr
January 27, 2009, 06:03 PM
FFL for DOL is a "brilliant" idea, now how do you convince director to do it?

waverace
January 27, 2009, 06:07 PM
I could give you a suggestion but its not very high road :D

user3214
January 27, 2009, 07:06 PM
Order has been signed

user3214
January 27, 2009, 07:19 PM
It's not clear to me if the fed background check will be done now.

cubanitojr
January 27, 2009, 07:38 PM
And now what are the steps go and get the GUNS?

:D

cdninusa
January 27, 2009, 07:40 PM
I just got off the phone with Zonda (sp?) from DOL.
Sounds like they (she in particular) genuinely want to help.

Here's what she told me...

They just heard the injunction was signed 15 minutes ago. They are working on updating the website.

You can apply now.

Use the old form.

No need to get the "I can't get a background search from Canada" if you can prove that you've lived here more than 2 years. She said to send an old Driver's License or utility bill with your address and a postmark. There may be other forms of proof, but you need to prove you have been a WA state resident for 2 years, not just a US resident. She said skipping the "sorry, we don't do background checks" letter from CDN consulate will NOT delay the application at all, as long as you have proof of being a WA State resident for 2 years.

She did say that the AFL probably won't be necessary once 1052 passes, but I'm not going to wait for the outcome of that. On my way to the Sheriff's office now. Probably see some of you there :-).

MD_Willington
January 27, 2009, 07:55 PM
My utility bills are electronic..

I'm not sure I have an old drivers license anymore...

I'll call.

user3214
January 27, 2009, 08:03 PM
MD, you can go to the DOL and ask them to give you a formal letter stating when you WA DL was issued, that's good enough.

cubanitojr
January 27, 2009, 08:15 PM
How to proceed if you have been in WA less than 2 years?

I am from Cuba, there is no Cuban consulate in USA (only a interest section in DC), since I got here with political asylum, Cuban authorities will not be cooperating. I am LPR now.

MD_Willington
January 27, 2009, 08:15 PM
I'm sending copies of the following and the lady at the DOL said it was cool to send them.

• Washington State Drivers License.
• Permanent Resident Alien Card (“Green Card”).
• Current Washington State Concealed Pistol License.
• Expired Washington State Alien Firearms License .

I asked about the House bills etcetera and we discussed that paying for the license now may be a waste of $$, but came to agree on the fact that for 2 years now the bills have had great reviews but never made it into the law books. Either way, I'm getting that piece of paper ASAP.

I also asked if they were informing WA State law enforcement, and they are doing that ASAP, but in the meantime, you can contact your local LEO and tell them the licenses are going to be issued again, and if your local LEO has questions that they can call the DOL for the heads up.

Now I just need to find a time to get over to the Sheriffs office. ;)

MD_Willington
January 27, 2009, 08:56 PM
cubanitojr I think your stuck until
#1 you've been here 24+ months
or
#2 HB1052 makes it the "Gov" and gets signed
or
#3 The Judge sides with the plaintiffs in the second case in August.

How long have you been here altogether?

cubanitojr
January 27, 2009, 09:01 PM
You may be correct. I just finished talking with DOL, she explained about the same, but if that is the case, they are still effectively infringing my 2nd amendment right. I am pretty sure there are other LPRs under the 2 year mark.

I have been here since Jan 2007 and the oldest document I found is an electronic paystub dated 02/12/2007. It is possible I got my first WA license on Jan or Feb 2007 not sure yet. DOL customer service told me to go to the Office and check when I got my first license.

MD_Willington
January 27, 2009, 09:05 PM
Well hopefully you can get it soon, or better yet, HB1052 gets signed, though you'll be at the 24 month mark before that I'm sure.

Well that is not too long to wait if they will accept that document.

Good Luck!

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 09:46 PM
Cool.

I'm sending my letter to the DOL tonight, and will be in Seattle tomorrow for the fingerprinting, background check.

Just a thought, wonder if I can get a few sets of prints to simplify getting a CPL later...

MD_Willington
January 27, 2009, 10:13 PM
Get the whole "shebang" while we still can.. LOL

Gungnir
January 27, 2009, 11:08 PM
Indeed.

One other point of note too, I also raised a continued call to arms to try to get the whole AFL deal removed on the activism thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=418617&page=2), just because currently the situation is alleviated, doesn't mean it's fixed. Lets use this opportunity to drive home the point and eliminate the AFL as it currently stands.

justice4all
January 28, 2009, 12:23 AM
So WA is still differentiating between citizen and resident aliens when it comes to guns, even though the federal government is responsible for setting immigration policy and has made it clear that a resident alien's gun rights are supposd to be co-extensive with a citizen's. And WA is further differentiating between resident aliens who have lived in WA for two years or more, and those who moved here more recently, again interfering in an area over which the feds have control AND interfering with he fundamental right of all legal residents of this country to travel among the states.

I'm not interested in WA resuming the issuance of a license that it has no business requiring in the first place. I'm interested in the law being declared null and void, once and for all.

Gungnir
January 28, 2009, 12:28 AM
^^^
I totally agree. This has resumed my 2A rights, for a tax, that is federally illegal. Which is why I'm pushing the call to arms to continue, in the activism thread I linked to :)

We've won a small political battle against the state on the AFL. We've yet to win the political war.

waverace
January 28, 2009, 01:21 AM
I agree I am not at the moment even going to grace them with my hard earned cash for something I shouldnt need , I have a bad feeling that when the polits see this they are going to rest on their laurels and let 1052 fall by the wayside as the situation has been at least sidestepped .

NewWAstate
January 28, 2009, 02:04 AM
cubanitojr and I are i the same position, but great to see progress on this issue. I'll drop DOL a call or swing by tomorrow and get the latest updates. Thanks to all for keeping up the information flow and the hard work lobbying. My two years are up in October '09, hunting season might be a bit tight!
Cheers.

user3214
January 28, 2009, 02:29 AM
How about apply for AFL.
If the AFL is declared unconstitutional by the judge, file a small claims lawsuit against the state for requiring you to pay to exercise you rights. This would be sweet.

waverace
January 28, 2009, 02:30 AM
I just get in , my drivers licence is 2 years and 3 days old , just dont see why I should , Ive waited this long a bit longer wont hurt , lets see what happens on the 29th

user3214
January 28, 2009, 02:40 AM
If the bill passes this week, there is still no guarantee it will pass as a law.
It needs to pass both houses. Right now it's at #1.

(We should know if it passes both houses by mid April)

Gungnir
January 28, 2009, 02:44 AM
Well, at the moment, it still needs another 2 readings in the State Congress, before it can go to the Senate (assuming it follows normal process).

then 3 more readings in the State Senate.

MD_Willington
January 28, 2009, 02:50 AM
Yes for now, the law sucks, but I'm getting while the getting is good.

No, I will NOT drop the subject I will still bug my local .GOV employees, and as the bills have made it almost the distance in the past I think it will take the lawsuit in August to give the whole issue the much deserved mule kick to the gonads and have the law dropped.

But for the time being, I want my stuff, in my house, not my friends house down the street.

cubanitojr
January 28, 2009, 12:28 PM
This decision has created another problem. LPRs under the 2 year mark have to "WAIT", US citizen moving to WA do not, it was made clear in court that LPRs have same gun rights as citizens. This is probably enough grounds to put another complain vs DOL, their customer service told me, nothing has changed, then I asked her why all of a sudden DOL decided start issuing AFLs again?


Quote:

I love this country.

Scarface

cubanitojr
January 28, 2009, 01:44 PM
Hey, Willington MD. Good News.

My first WA license was issued 01/08/07, so I do not have to wait, but still other WA LPRs do have to wait, I will still lobby fort them. Anyways thanks guys for all your efforts..

waverace
January 28, 2009, 02:05 PM
Even if you guys apply for the licence now , please remember all that this is still an infringement , if this is somehow allowed to stay it could hold consequences for the future , such as licencing for all , I can see it now , "look how well it works for WA state , look how much revenue they made , why dont we do that ?" citizens would for the most part go to the wall against something like this , we as future citizens should be no different , no rolling over , no giving up .
Rights are rights , laws that are wrong are wrong and must be changed not skirted around .

cdninusa
January 28, 2009, 05:41 PM
I just got back from Sno Co Sherrif's dept. After much help and convincing on my part, I got fingerprinted and submitted my forms. Here's how it went...

me-Hi, I'm here to get my AFL. All my paperwork is complete.
snoco - we don't do those anymore.
me-an injunction was signed yesterday reinstating the AFL.
snoco-we are not aware of that
me-here is the phone number for DOL.
snoco- calls supervisor
snoco- we don['t have a process in place to do that yet
me - here is the phone number for DOL
snoco-come back in 2 weeks
me-I nicely explained that there is a court order that says they have to process me, effective yesterday
snoco-sorry, come back in 2 weeks, or go across the street to Everett PD (I am not in their jurisdiction and already knew how that would go).

I call DOL from the snoco pd waiting area. I must say, eve3ryone I have spoken with at DOL has been AWESOME throughout this whole thing. The person I had been dealing with was out for lunch, so I explained the situation to the lady on the phone that snoco pd wouldn't process me. she said she would have the person I dealt with at DOL call snoco pd when she returned from lunch and inform them. I asked when she would be back and was told within an hour. I left my phone number and asked for a call back.

had time to kill, so I went across the street to Everett PD and as expected, was told that they couldn't process me - I had to get it through snoco pd.

No more than 15 minutes after my call to DOL, I received a callback from the person I spoke to today from DOL saying she called snoco pd and "they are ready for me now". Actually she called me back 3 times - once I was in a garage and had bad reception, the second time I sent it to voicemail because I was at the Everett PD.

I went back to snoco pd and they processed me, although they were confused as to whether I needed to fill out the CPL app in addition to the AFL, which it turns out I did not.

an experience in "pushing chain" but now SnoCo is able and willing to process the AFL's and I'm guessing it helped pave the path for others so it was worth it.

BTW, Everett is still unaware of this process, so if you're going to Everett in the next day or so, I would advise you call DOL and ask them to call Everett for you in advance so you don't have to go through what I went through.

cdninusa
January 28, 2009, 05:49 PM
PS, I know this is an infringement. I had to go through this to get FAA approval for pilot training as well, so I'm used to it by now. That said, I'd rather get it than wait who knows how long for this to get all sorted out. I may ask for a refund of any funds I paid that I shouldn't have been required to pay. I expect that the state will automatically issue a refund if the law/AFL is found to be unconstitutional. They may even go back and provide refunds to everyone that paid for it in the past. I believe that happened once when they overcharged on license plate tab fees but can't recall the exact situation.


PPS, AFL info is back up on the DOL website.
http://dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faalien.html

MD_Willington
January 28, 2009, 06:58 PM
I suggest everyone here give your local LEA the heads up, I have done this with my Sheriff and he knows the score... The applications are to be accepted and completed now.

King County is dragging their heels too!

The lawyer said to call him if the LEAs do not "Get R Done"...

NewWAstate
January 28, 2009, 08:32 PM
I just talked to the DOL and the nice lady said that I just need a letter from my local consulate (New Zealand) and I can then apply - she was even kind enough to send out an application packet, but I see it is posted here. Will report on how it goes, I intent to go direct to the DOL.

cubanitojr
January 28, 2009, 08:54 PM
Here is how is going for me:

1. Contacted DOL, gave me instructions how to fill out application, told me to complete and include all required documentation (all this is in the application package).
2. Called Redmond Police Dept. They told me, since this process was recently reinstated and to facilitate the process, they wanted to see the "Whole" completed package before I mail it to DOL, then they'll process me and I could mail it to DOL.


I hope this help.

Gungnir
January 28, 2009, 08:59 PM
Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else feel that local LEA's are a little bit jumpy about this being reinstated?

I'll let you guys know how Seattle goes tomorrow, was planning on going today, but, other things intruded again.

Clint C
January 28, 2009, 09:27 PM
Non-United States citizens legally residing in the U.S. should not be able to own guns.

If they want to own guns they should become citizens. It is that simple.

MD_Willington
January 28, 2009, 09:38 PM
Its not that simple.

As green card holders we are under the jurisdiction of the USA, and as such we are considered a US citizen, it says so right in OUR constitution.


Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So I guess you better lobby your .gov critters to come up with an amendment that would have them repeal the 14th, but watch out, once they start the ball rolling on the 14th, more would follow.

And I'm due to get naturalized in ~ 17 months...

cubanitojr
January 28, 2009, 09:40 PM
Clint C.

It is VERY difficult to legally reside in USA with a Greencard, we have to undergo deep scrutinity by Homeland security, FBI and ICE approved Doctors. Once you get it, you have to wait 5 years before you can even apply for citizenship. Under the USA constitution Greencard holders enjoy SAME benefits as US citizens with the exeption of voting for the US president.

waverace
January 28, 2009, 09:45 PM
Thanks to the constitution you are entitled to freely speak your oppinion , and we thank you for it , however becoming a citizen is not an overnight process , we must first be green card holders for 3 years before we can apply after that it takes about 6 years at the moment to get to the point where we can take a test that most citizens would fail , then we can be sworn in as citizens . the initial green card application is not a quick process either , in my case due to a mistake by the USCIS it took 6 years .so by the standards that you state I should be disallowed from self defence of myself and my citizen family and restricted in my choice of hobbies and sports for 15 years !! just because I was not born here . like I said you are entitled to your oppinion , thankfully the constitution and the federal law thinks otherwise .

Clint C
January 28, 2009, 09:53 PM
MD I said non-United States citizens legally residing in the U.S. That means NON-United States citizens are not citizens.

For all of you guys with greencards I do thank you for going through the tuff process of getting them.

Clint C
January 28, 2009, 10:00 PM
I mean no disrespect to you all.

Just because I said what I said does not mean that I think you are bad people.

Maybe with what you guys have posted you have gave me alittle bit of a change of heart, and it does suck that good people may not be able to own guns.

MD_Willington
January 28, 2009, 10:08 PM
and I meant no disrespect, I understand where you're coming from too.

I think what natural born citizens need to understand is this, we come from countries where we are never guaranteed any rights like this, so when we get a taste of this we fight to get it back when it is removed.

In the case of the other people I'm in contact with, not only is the State denying the LPR a right, they also deny the right of the spouse, usually a US citizen.

The US citizen literally has to remove any access to the firearms from their spouse.

In that regard they are removing the rights of the natural born citizen and any other US citizen in the household, the State in a way is using this as backdoor gun control.


Many of us LPRs are here, working in industries where what we produce keeps US citizens alive and well, if I was a bad person, I would be able to do bad things on a grand scale, but I'm not a bad person.


Thank you for listening to my rant.. LOL

Gungnir
January 28, 2009, 10:16 PM
Clint C.

I respect your opinion, I have listed a few points, below, that I would appreciate you considering.

As stated by MD_Willington as an LPR we are under jurisdiction of the US. Thus the 14th Amendment applies. There are two Federal rights that LPR's do not have, the right to vote, and the right to run for public office.I pay US taxes (without representation), should my rights be second to a citizens on anything but perhaps deciding the countries direction?

If you erode the 14th to create a second class of citizen, or announce that "this classification" is not covered by the 14th then where does that thinking lead? Logically it leads to elimination of rights from various classifications of people who are decided in DC. What if that classification extends to various socio-economic groups, or racial profiles? Totally legal born in the USA, but now not protected under the 14th.

Police protection, since under the 2A citizens have the RKBA, then if 2A rights don't extend to LPR's, does that mean that in cases of emergency that the Police are required to react more rapidly to an LPR since they have been effectively disarmed?

Spouses of Immigrants, who are US Citizens? Should they (as happens in WA) be denied 2A rights, or risk deportation of their family members for a felony constructive possession of a firearm?

All of the Founding Fathers started off as English men, so I guess you could call them LPR's at that time, they defined the US, and shaped it into something that people still flock to today, under the Banner of "With Liberty and Justice for all..." I don't see a qualification of that statement.

Again as MD_Willington said, as an LPR, I have had background checks performed by the FBI, US, and UK intelligence agencies.

I am also in process of Naturalizing. Why? because I love this country, you have freedoms, that many other developed nations have already squashed in the interests of the many, you have some problems, but there is grit and determination in the People, and the Country to resolve those problems, and they're problems that people acknowledge and feel responsible for.

Like the founding fathers, I started my life as an English man. I'm intent on becoming an American (in this I feel a great respect, for the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, I will uphold them in the spirit they were written to my last breath) and I feel to a degree humbled that I am following in their footsteps.

I've said my piece.

cubanitojr
January 28, 2009, 10:18 PM
Hey guys. What kind of GUNS are you planning to buy??

I want a pistol Smith&Wesson M&P .40 and Remington Model 750 Woodmaster Carbine OR Kel-tec RFB carbine, then go pig hunting.

waverace
January 28, 2009, 10:32 PM
Well put Gungnir I dont think that I have anything to add except that this law affects an estimated 15000 people here in WA state many of them are NRA and SAF members , by their contributions and actions they are supporting the rights of US citizens as well as their own without a thought of color , race or social standing , simply put we are all people who have a love of firearms and shooting , for the right reasons .

Clint C
January 28, 2009, 11:04 PM
Now that I have thought about the whole thing some more and try to place myself in your shoes. I find it terrifying to think I would not be able to keep my wife and kids as safe as I could with a gun in the house. A baseball bat just doesn't do it huh?

Gungnir
January 28, 2009, 11:13 PM
A Baseball bat and a pig sticker does my wife and I OK for now :) That said, I'd prefer an alternative.

I appreciate you spending some time to put yourself, and your family in our shoes.

cdninusa
January 29, 2009, 02:00 AM
actually there are other things that permanent resident aliens cannot do, or require extensive (redundant) background checks to do...

Some that I've encountered are, get anywhere near anything related to defense; I had to get background checks to get into Cape Canaveral (NASA) for work, to work on systems that were not classified,but considered sensitive, and I had to be fingerprinted and undergo background checks just to be able to get training to be a private pilot. I understand the reasons and live with it. At least there are (now) processes I can go through for most of what I want to do.

With all due respect to anyone who believes permanent resident aliens shouldn't be able to own a gun, I would say that every PRA has already been heavily screened, medically tested and fingerprinted before earning the right to live here, something that the average joe down the street has never had to undergo. Because of this, and the fact that we could be shipped back to where we came from in a heartbeat if we ever did anything wrong, PRA's are a pretty safe bet. I believe I've been required to be fingerprinted at least 4 times since I moved here in '98.

Gungnir
January 29, 2009, 06:19 PM
Ok, as I mentioned yesterday, went to King County Sheriffs Dept (156th 3rd Ave and James St.) today to apply for my AFL

No Issues whatsoever, the person seemed a little confused at first, accepted my LPR card, and Drivers license as ID, no questions, paid the fee, had my prints taken. Over in about 20 minutes all told.

So should be good in about 30 days.

cubanitojr
January 29, 2009, 08:29 PM
Looks they took some sort of action on the bill: HB 1052

Jan 29 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Judiciary at 10:00 AM.
JUDI - Executive action TAKEN by committee.

What does it mean?

MD_Willington
January 29, 2009, 09:45 PM
I'll email my insider in Olympia...

Gungnir
January 29, 2009, 10:27 PM
Posted this on the Activism thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=418617&page=3) with the judicial report.

I pinged Jim Moeller today, haven't yet got a response.

cdninusa
January 29, 2009, 10:42 PM
you can see the actual session at www.tvw.org search for judiciary

looks like there were some proposed ammendments

fee change - surprise, it's going down from 55 - 50
LE immunity from decision - no surprise
looks like AFL could be still/back in place???
allows DOL to make one standard form
legalese about defining "sporting events"
removes emergency clause - no surprise here

try this link for the video

http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2009010173&TYPE=V&CFID=2069692&CFTOKEN=87926217

1052 stuff starts at 1:19:24

waverace
January 29, 2009, 11:10 PM
Looks like the only change detrimental to our cause is the removal of the emergency clause , so when is round 2 ?

MD_Willington
January 30, 2009, 02:47 PM
No replies today...

MD_Willington
January 30, 2009, 06:40 PM
Response posted in Activism thread, but just in case.. I'll put it here to:


HOUSE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE

TO: Representative Jim Moeller

FROM: Mr. MD Willington(Non-Constituent)
SUBJECT: HB 1052-2009

MESSAGE:

Hello:

I see that the emergency clause is to be removed from HB1052-2009.

What affect if any will this have on the the RCW pertaining to green
card holders being removed from the RCW?

I was under the impression that if the emergency clause was left in the
bill, as soon as the bill was signed into law, that all of us green card
holders living in WA State would immediately be exempt, as in 49 the
other States, from the discriminatory Alien Firearms License law.


Now that the emergency clause is to be removed, how soon would the RCW
have to be re-written?

Thank you for your time.

MD Willington



NOTE: We could not determine that this constituent is in your district

RESPONSE REQUESTED: Mr. Willington has requested a response to this
message.


Hi Matt:
Thanks for your email. The removal of the emergency clause has no effect
on legal alien residence exemption from the requirement of a Alien
Firearm Permit. It merely means you will need to wait 90 days after the
governor signs the bill for it to become law.

Sincerely,

Jim

Rep. Jim Moeller

MD_Willington
February 2, 2009, 10:49 AM
Alright everyone, the Judiciary passed 1052-2009

They changed a bit of the verbiage, but the bill still gets off LPRs off the hook in regards to obtaining a license.

We need to contact the Rules Committee members and get them on board too.

I don't have a list of emails available, I can probably get the phone numbers.

Gungnir
February 2, 2009, 11:04 AM
I'll post the list I generated of the Rules Committee members, when I grab it from work.

Strangely the Rules committee does not post its membership. You can find the members of the rules committee if you list the house members, and search for Rules however (which is what I did), if you can't wait for me to post the link.

waverace
February 2, 2009, 11:50 AM
Keep the ball rolling guys its looking good ;)

Gungnir
February 2, 2009, 01:37 PM
Rules Committee Members

Mike Armstrong
Barbara Bailey
Frank Chopp
Richard DeBolt
Deborah Eddy
Mark Ericks
Tami Green
Bob Hasegawa
Zachary Hudgins
Norm Johnson
Troy Kelley
Lynn Kessler
Joel Kretz
Dan Kristiansen
Marko Liias
Jim Moeller
Dawn Morrell
Jeff Morris
Daniel Newhouse
sharon Tomiko Santos
Joe Schmick
Larry Springer
Kevin Van de Wege
Judy Warnick

MD_Willington
February 2, 2009, 02:48 PM
Rules Committee

armstrong.mike@leg.wa.gov

bailey.barbara@leg.wa.gov

chopp.frank@leg.wa.gov

debolt.richard@leg.wa.gov

eddy.deborah@leg.wa.gov

ericks.mark@leg.wa.gov

green.tami@leg.wa.gov

hasegawa.bob@leg.wa.gov

hudgins.zachary@leg.wa.gov

johnson.norm@leg.wa.gov

kelley.troy@leg.wa.gov

kessler.lynn@leg.wa.gov

kretz.joel@leg.wa.gov

kristiansen.dan@leg.wa.gov

liias.marko@leg.wa.gov

moeller.jim@leg.wa.gov

morrell.dawn@leg.wa.gov

morris.jeff@leg.wa.gov

newhouse.dan@leg.wa.gov

santos.sharontomiko@leg.wa.gov

schmick.joe@leg.wa.gov

springer.larry@leg.wa.gov

vandewege.kevin@leg.wa.gov

warnick.judy@leg.wa.gov

MD_Willington
February 2, 2009, 04:46 PM
I have a nifty form letter here...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5304239&postcount=85

cubanitojr
February 2, 2009, 07:24 PM
Here some thoughts :

Quote:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States"

LPRs are not born or naturalized in the US, once we become a citizens then we'd be "Naturalized". The argument below bridges the gaps created by the 14th amendment wording when it uses the words "Citizens & naturalized"

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981(a), provides in part:"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United states shall have the same right in every State...to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of a person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens..."

Lawfully admitted resident aliens are "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C 1981(a).

PS: I extracted this from the NRA, SAF formal complaint.

MD_Willington
February 2, 2009, 08:12 PM
Go look at the Activism thread, right on the thread is the civics exam for LPRs, look at questions 50 then 51, 51 directly applies to LPRs, but only those outside WA State currently...

Because we're special in WA state.. {/barf.. LOL

JochenWeber
February 3, 2009, 01:48 AM
I am very concerned about the discrimination of legal permanent residents and their right to protect themselves and their families in the State of Washington. I believe this is a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. This is an eviceration of the second amendment of the Constitution. This is exactly what the framers that drafted the second amendment tried to prevent.There is no question on my mind that there is a obvious level of collusion here. I am afraid that is Washington politics at the worst.

MD_Willington
February 3, 2009, 02:00 AM
Well Jochen, if you're in WA State, then please contact the Rules committee members with one of the form letters and ask that they fix the problem.

Thanks

MD_Willington
February 3, 2009, 10:59 AM
Do you Facebook?

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58884129771

If so, spread the word...

cubanitojr
February 3, 2009, 04:20 PM
Went today 02/03/09 to the Redmond Police Dept. got fingerprinted and everything went smoothly. The lady that fingerprinted me was a bit confused whether it was an AFL or CPL and even told me, with the AFL. I do not need the CPL, I asked her to doublecheck since they are both different pieces of paper. I think she meant, if I ever apply for a CPL, may not need to be fingerprinted again.

So, has anyone recieved a post lawsuit AFL?

How long does it take?

MD_Willington
February 3, 2009, 04:38 PM
30 to 60 days is what I keep hearing, depends how long it takes for the background check...

Gungnir
February 3, 2009, 04:40 PM
Per the RCW 30 days


(b) Before issuing an alien firearm license under subsection (1) of this section or this subsection (2), the director of licensing shall ask the local law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the alien resides to complete a background and fingerprint check to determine the alien's eligibility under RCW 9.41.040 to own, possess, or control a firearm. The law enforcement agency shall complete a background check within thirty days after the request, unless the alien does not have a valid Washington driver's license or Washington state identification card. In the latter case, the law enforcement agency shall complete the background check within sixty days after the request.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Lawsuit against Washington State" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!