WA State: Proposed "assault weapon" ban legislation


PDA






brandnew
January 13, 2010, 11:46 PM
This is a piece of legislation specifically for WA state, but I think it's important that everybody know what's happening in the rest of the US.

Largely based on cosmetics, this legislation goes after pistols, rifles and shotguns, and a county sheriff says this kind of law won't prevent violent felons from getting guns.

The bill itself is located here:
http://tinyurl.com/yc4xasv

An article by our own Gun Rights Examiner here:
http://tinyurl.com/yazh9p6

I think a lot of times people don't know what to say, or don't have time to their representatives. I'm also certain that any hypothesis regarding gun control that inspired this drek legislation is fundamentally flawed and can be easily disproven.

I'm wondering if a website dedicated to this specific issue could be helpful in making a strong case against this appalling legislation. Statistics and logic do not lie, and a clear argument that breaks the bill down piece by piece could be instrumental in the fight. So far in my life, I've done little to combat nonsense laws, and so far I've been relatively lucky that not a lot of them have passed. The longer I'm around watching these things happen the more I realize that unless we fight back against flawed ideology, we can and will be left with a flawed society with little recourse.

So does putting effort into developing something like this ever pay off?

If you enjoyed reading about "WA State: Proposed "assault weapon" ban legislation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Greg_M
January 14, 2010, 12:20 PM
Another Link
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5293

PBinWA
January 15, 2010, 12:51 PM
We've been discussing this at NorthwestFirearms:

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/for...ad.php?t=21862

You should contact ALL of the Senate Judiciary Committee members even if you know they won't care about your opinion.

Here are the email addresses:

Senator Adam Kline kline.adam@leg.wa.gov District 37 D
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov District 36 D
Senator Mike Carrell carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov District 28 R
Senator James Hargrove hargrove.jim@leg.wa.gov District 24 D
Senator Pam Roach roach.pam@leg.wa.gov District 31 R
Senator Debbie Regala regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov District 27 D
Senator Rodney Tom tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov District 48 D
Senator Bob McCaslin mccaslin.bob@leg.wa.gov District 4 R

Also, don't forget to contact all your legislators:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx

PBinWA
January 15, 2010, 12:53 PM
Facebook page too:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oppose-Bill-6396-Washington-State-Assault-Weapons-Ban/280543591421?ref=mf

Buzzard
January 18, 2010, 11:38 PM
As a lot of people who live here have said...

"There's Seattle, and then there's the rest of the state."

The language of this bill alone is enough to make me wonder if the author even graduated the 4th grade. It screams of a slap-dash attempt at gun control, poorly written and even more poorly thought out. Thankfully those rarely pass. Still and all, I've fired an e-mail off to Pridemore stating my sincere dislike for a bill that wishes to restrict my constitutional right.

As an end note, HB 2477 needs to die as well. E-mails have already been sent to the appropriate State Reps on that one, too.

matai
January 19, 2010, 12:13 AM
"There's Seattle, and then there's the rest of the state."

So true, out off all the big cities I've ever been to, Seattle is awesome but I really go there, I try hard to steer clear.

ohgrady
January 19, 2010, 01:25 AM
Did you catch the section on inspections?

"(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was
legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person
possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
(5)(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of
the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to
ensure compliance with this subsection;"

David E
January 19, 2010, 02:48 AM
(20) "Assault weapon" means:
8 (a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle
9 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a
10 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition....

Idiots making laws........illiterate ones at that.

Victor1Echo
January 19, 2010, 09:51 AM
So does putting effort into developing something like this ever pay off?
YES! You may not stop it, but the process is important. Being active mentally/physically, and socailly involves you. You will meet new people who share your values, and most of all you will feel like you are part of a community--something our "now" fathers/mothers have worked so hard to destroy. The journey is the destination. You need to do this in spite of everything because it is what you believe, and regardelss it will make you feel better.

roadslug
January 19, 2010, 01:16 PM
I just yesterday e-mailed a message to the three legislators from my district urging them to NOT support this bill. A first for me. Yes, as it stands if this bill passes I will get a visit from the local sheriff for firearms inspection each year, while someone with illegal firearms possession will NEVER be searched if they fly under the radar. Sound reasonable?:scrutiny:

collector rob
January 19, 2010, 01:30 PM
E-mailed Gov. Gregoire, Senator Brandland, (my old boss), and Represetatives Ericksen and Linville.

MatthewVanitas
January 19, 2010, 02:42 PM
Thanks for the heads-up! Posting to AR15.com's WA subforum:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=15&t=393675&page=1


It'd help if folks could mention other WA-specific forums where we're announcing this, to make sure we cover them all. Anybody got Glock Talk's WA (PNW?) subforum covered?

Buzzard
January 26, 2010, 06:44 PM
The local paper had a spread on this bill yesterday. In it, at least three Legislators stated they would oppose the bill, and one said her office received over 1,000 e-mails opposing it. Kline said he'd do whatever it took to pass it. The message I got back from Pridemore was straight-forward and rather honest. In short, he said he'd oppose it because the economy was more important. The article's writer said the odds of it passing were pretty slim. Law makers were more focused on what would actually prevent criminals from getting bail on certain charges and other laws that make sense.

cyclopsshooter
January 26, 2010, 07:36 PM
I contacted my representatives and they said they were against it- the NRA pac-northwest rep says it is not likely to go anywhere.

EmGeeGeorge
January 26, 2010, 08:09 PM
Below are the two responses I've gotten so far from emailing the state senators... below in italics is what I sent....



Dear Matthew,



Thank you for your support of the Second Amendment. I completely agree with you and will strongly oppose SB 6396. In fact, I went shooting with the NRA's Brian Judy and Senator Adam Kline, who is the prime sponsor of this legislation, at the Black Diamond gun club to try and provide him with an education on different types of firearms.



SB 6396 has been scheduled for a public hearing next Tuesday, January 26th, at 10AM in the Judiciary Committee. The committee meets in Senate Hearing Room 1 in the John A. Cherberg building on the capitol campus.



If you are able to attend the hearing, this would be a very effective forum to voice your opposition to SB 6396.



Thank you again for the email. Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any further input or if there is anything I can do for you.



Sincerely,



Pam Roach



_______________________________________________________________
Matt,



Thank you so much for writing in regard to Senate Bill 6396, which deals with a ban on assault weapons. Any time we’re dealing with gun issues and Second Amendment rights, there tends to be a lot of confusion about what a bill does or does not do.



This legislation isn’t going anywhere this session. You should know that it appears as though there is very little momentum for this bill, as reported in the Seattle Times.



The intent of this legislation is to mirror the old federal legislation that has lapsed regarding an assault weapons ban. I firmly believe that there is a happy medium that allows us to keep guns that can rapidly fire away from dangerous criminals or those suffering from mental illness while at the same time preserving the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and/or have guns for hunting purposes.



My father has been an NRA member for more than 40 years, so we often have this debate within our family as to what is a reasonable restriction on gun ownership. I think we can all agree that there are certain weapons, such as a bazooka, that have no place in the public forum. So to say that there should be no gun restrictions is a fallacy that is not supported by the current interpretation of law. On the other hand we do need to recognize our forefathers’ decision to guarantee our right to bear arms and the reasoning behind it. If the bill advances through the two houses of the Legislature, we will have many opportunities to amend its language and pursue a reasonable and balanced final product.



Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions. I look forward to our continued dialogue on this issue.



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



From: matt george [mailto:george.matthew@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:41 AM
To: Kline, Sen. Adam; Kohl-Welles, Sen. Jeanne; Carrell, Sen. Michael; Hargrove, Sen. Jim; Roach, Sen. Pam; Regala, Sen. Debbie; Tom, Sen. Rodney; McCaslin, Sen. Bob
Subject: Reject Senate Bill 6396



Dear Senators;

Please reject Senate Bill 6396. The bill is obviously a knee-jerk reaction to the recent tragedies perpetrated on the citizens and Law Enforcement Officers of Washington state.
I worked for several years in Corrections (Snohomish County and City of Lynnwood) and had the pleasure to deal with many of those people who actually are the problem. I saw convicted felons brought in on felony firearms possession let off with 90 day(or less) sanctions via DOC, when they should have been incarcerated for considerable time. Career criminals who know that current criminal law in Washington lacks any sort of "teeth" in dealing with recidivist offenders and conduct themselves accordingly.
Much of the violence I believe stems from two things; Law Enforcement consistently having their hands tied by the State Supreme Court in Washington in dealing with offenders on th street, and the court's sentencing guidelines that put murderers, robbers, child-rapists, etc, back on the street far too quickly. Recent examples of gang violence have offenders in their early twenties sentenced to terms of less that 15 years, so they will be out in under 10, still fully capable of inflicting great harm on society, and without any rehabilitation. Failures in DOC policy and state law produced the Lakewood tragedy, not my possession of an AR-15 rifle.
Review what can be done to discourage offenders from committing these acts, and how those who need to be confined can be effectively.
I still have close personal contact with many of my former law enforcement colleagues who recognize the current bill for what it is; an ill-devised, reactionary, and ineffective construction that will do nothing to prevent future acts of violence. Focus on the offenders, and how to remedy a broken criminal justice system in Washington.
Stop accepting violent offenders from other states with supervisory parole transfers.

Don't restrict the rights and freedoms of the law abiding gun-owners of Washington state who vote for you.

Very Respectfully,

Matthew George
Everett, Washington

Kitchen_Duty
January 26, 2010, 08:47 PM
Just watched the "live feed" from glorious Olympia. Makes me sad. I don't know who chose to have the guy that personally attacked the creator of the bill but: bad move. Much simpler to just go up there and be very reasonable and present facts, not tin-foil-hattery.

-Kitchen

dkk73
January 26, 2010, 11:41 PM
I wrote my legislators and 2 of 3 wrote back saying they'd oppose it; one on 2A ground and one on 4A grounds (at least the anti-gun one had the reasonability to apply her standards regarding 4A fairly).

The sense I got from them was that it was unlikely to see the light of day.

In general, even in Seattle (I noticed it didn't take too long for people to start dissing it above), I think there is a lot more silent sympathy for gun rights than is widely acknowledged. And state-wide, our position is strong.

I agree with Kitchen in the sense that this is, if anything, "ours to lose" in the public eye by talking krazy. Instead, let's use this as an opportunity to show our legislators just how many of us are concerned about this issue. Such an action will probably help to stem more insidious future legislation.

Cheers,
Dave

ETA: Funny in a way: The bill's sponsor is the rep from my old neighborhood. The one I left in significant part because of crime problems. Go figure.

oasis618
January 26, 2010, 11:45 PM
Just watched the "live feed" from glorious Olympia. Makes me sad. I don't know who chose to have the guy that personally attacked the creator of the bill but: bad move. Much simpler to just go up there and be very reasonable and present facts, not tin-foil-hattery.

-Kitchen
I was thinking the same thing while watching it live online. A senate hearing is really no place for emotion-riddled personal attacks. But, at least he showed up to speak his mind; that's more than I can say I did...

If you enjoyed reading about "WA State: Proposed "assault weapon" ban legislation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!