Discussion in 'Legal' started by MOAMike, Jan 23, 2005.
whats a GFW?
Geeky Freaking Wierdo?
Generally F-Upped Wanker?
Greasy Feminine Wacko?
I'll post stuff as it occurs for those who can't listen in.
Onto the .50 cal rifle ban.
Pro 2A: Harold Priest, Bill Waldron, Stu Halston?: still waiting, back to CCW at capitol.
BTW, as I first read this in the paper last week, it was regarding school property, not places where children are gathered.
Ginny Burdick will be getting a letter, along with all the others.
Thanks for the posting. Burdick is definitely an enemy to the gunowners of Oregon.
Or Click if you have real media player
I'm not sure how much it would help, but even Canada, no kidding, Canada, does not outlaw "assault weapons" as defined by this bill. It's true you have to register them and all that, but that's true of any firearm in Canada.
They can put that in their pipe and smoke it. Dammit
It went about as you'd expect.
The room was packed full of very angry gun owners, and actually overflowed into two other rooms. Quite a crowd given the last-minute nature of the announcements. Most of us hadn't seen the most obnoxious bit of legislation, the Assault Weapons Ban, and got our copies just a few moments before the hearing began.
The proposed WA AWB is very much more restrictive than the recently expired federal ban, and includes the wonderful savory innovation of allowing the top cop of your county to inspect your home & storage facilities "not more than" once a year. The bill doesn't lay out any sort of standards for what constitutes safe or unsafe storage, doesn't say what will happen if the storage is unsatisfactory in the top cop's mind, and does say that a fee will be charged every time the gun's yearly registration is renewed. The amount of the fee is not specified.
The folks testifying for the anti-gun legislation were:
1) Mostly from King County
2) Mostly on the public payroll (eg Police Chief, head firefighter honcho, etc)
The few who were not, were folks representing Washington Ceasefire and the Physicians for ... er, public safety? social policy? I forget -- anyway, the organization has been around awhile and is basically just another Brady Bunch spinoff.
We were well represented by some paid lobbyists -- Joe Waldron and Brian Judy both did an excellent job testifying for us. There were also a lot of "just plain folks" called up to speak, so the committee chair did not allow each of our paid professional speakers to speak on each bill (he made them share their time, something he didn't require of the other side). I also think, sigh, the committee chair worked pretty hard at calling the scruffier-looking amongst us ... and I know that by calling a lot of "plain citizens" to speak, he was hoping most would make fools of themselves.
The crowd was interesting. Gun owners were all wearing the gun owners' uniform: blue jeans (mostly clean), flannel shirts or tee shirts with cover vests, and cowboy boots. My son remarked on the prevalence of beer bellies in the gun owner crowd. I noticed a few tats, leather, and long hair. It was obvious everyone had made some effort to clean up, and equally obvious that we were a working-class crowd, and not white collar workers either. There were not a lot of women on our side, only three or four of us. The women on our side looked, IMO, better than the men, but nowhere near as good as our opponents did.
Our opponents were dressed in navy or black business suits (males), or dressed up in high heels, stockings, business length skirts, etc (females). They looked a heckuva lot more presentable than we did, and a lot more professional.
The committee chair, Senator Kline, was noticeably anti-gun but worked hard to make it look like he was being fair and balanced. For instance, he said he would allow equal testimony time from each side. Very fair and balanced -- but far more than 3/4 of the crowd I saw was pro-gun. So the committee, apart from using their eyes, did not actually get a fair representation of the constituency in the room. The chair announced he would read out the numbers of folks who'd signed in to testify pro & con, but did so only once -- and that one was one of the earlier bills discussed. The ratio was 20 pro gun to 1 anti gun. After that he "forgot" to read the numbers again. Maybe it's in the transcripts.
The hearing dragged out for two and a half hours, but each person got to testify for only two minutes, plus questions at the end if the committee members were so inclined. And the testimony was limited to three or four people per side per bill.
The questions from the committee were sometimes amusing, sometimes provocative, and sometimes very interesting. Several of the committee members are plainly on our side (Senator Hargrove comes to mind here), but they appear to be outnumbered by the antis -- and not all of the ones on our side were able to stay throughout the entire hearing. This made the hearing a little more hostile to our side than it could otherwise have been. (Still, the crowd was soooo much on our side that even the committee chair and the most anti-gun of the members looking daggers at the witnesses didn't do much to intimidate folks from speaking their minds.)
The chair kept saying that he didn't usually say much, or hadn't said much, etc -- but his face said volumes, and he did say rather a lot. He argued with several of the witnesses, and got a pretty good laugh when he was grilling Joe Waldron. Waldron said that the Gun Show bill was imposing what amounted to a new tax, a really unfair tax. The chair interrupted to say, "It's a FEE, not a TAX, I just want to make that clear..." The rest of his words were drowned out in laughter from the crowd.
My prediction is that most of these bills will pass out of committee nearly unscathed, unless we all get up off our butts and do something about it.
I would have loved to be able to testify at that hearing, in full dress uniform. I think I could fit the following into the two minutes allotted:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank for allowing me to speak. As an officer in the United States Army, I took an oath the 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' You are getting very close to meeting the definition for the latter."
This bill was written by what I would call "radical" anti's who are out to simply ban most everthing. It looks like my 10/22 with its Ross Thumbhole stock would become an evil assault weapon. At least they didn't see fit to include my Garand!!
The registration part is silly in that most county Sheriff's offices won't have the manpower or time to perform any sort of check at residences.
WA is money-hungry right now and there is another bill that was introduced yesterday that would put tolls on some very heavily travelled roads around Pierce and King Counties. Some roads such as I-405, SR 167, I-90 from Seattle to the Eastside and even I-5 from the Pierce County line north to I-405! Putting a state toll on an Interstate Highway will be pretty hard to do as most of the funding for Interstate highways come from the Feds.
Legislators tend to get pretty stupid in their reasoning and bills in the early days as they are in some way having to placate their constituients and show them they are working hard on their behalf. Then the reality of business sets in and they find that their pet bills go nowhere fast. Hopefully it will be this way with this assinine assault weapons bill. I would have eto think the NRA is getting things in motion to stop this bill in its tracks.
Hell, we still aren't sure if we even have the correct person in the Guv's office yet!
One sour faced old prune senator from Seattle scowled at the NRA rep and basically called him a liar when he said the NRA has child safety programs. She said that the NRA was just out for itself and did not care about children. Her definition of caring: they have not supported one restrictive law.
On the pro-side you had a large crowd in attendance. There were reps from the NRA, WAC, WSRPA, Olympic Arms, and couple of other organizations. They basically argued the statistical side. One brought up the absurdity of registering or confiscating constitutionally protected property. I thought one of the best speakers was the Oly Arms rep. Apparently he is a former Democrat Senator. He stated something to the effect of that being a Democrat didn't used to mean being against shooting sports. All of the (D) senators on the committee said of course that's not the case. He said that since he left office in Lewis County 17 years ago that not a single Democrat had been elected to the senate there. He told them that there just might be a reason for that.
They allowed one non-affiliated citizen to speak out against the AWB. He wasn't exactly eloquent but I think he made an important point. He read a passage from the Declaration of Independence. It was the part about the creator endowing us with certain unalienable rights and that governments are formed with the purpose to protect those rights. He told them they were failing to uphold their oath.
I can almost guarantee that none of the anti-gun people with the exception of the cop had ever fired one before. This is who we are allowing to drive law?
Guns Traced to Crime
For the record, and to rebut the phony statistics (which the anti's brought up at the meeting more than once) about "guns traced to crime," Dave Kopel reports the following
Cox's problem may be that BATF traces are not an accurate indicator of which guns are used in crime. In an average year, there are about 360,000 violent crimes committed with firearms. Of those 360,000 crimes, BATF is asked to trace about 5,600 crime guns (less than 2% of total crime guns). It is statistically likely that there would be a difference between the 2% of guns traced and crime guns as a whole. The 2% of guns selected for a trace request are not a random sample, but rather a select group chosen by local police departments. (p.413)According to basic statistics theory, a non-random sample of 2% is unlikely to accurately represent the larger whole. A non-random sample becomes statistically valid only when 60% to 70% of the total relevant population is sampled. As the Congressional Research Service explains:
The firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes.
the link for the piece is here. Not that we do, but don't let them get away with this crap.
These type of people will most not likely swayed by facts and figures that come from the pro-gun side. She apparently is set in her ways and there will be little that can be done to sway her.
Seattle, as an entity, assumes that they are the epicenter of the state and that what they say, do, and want is not something that the rest of the state needs to be concerned with. This attitude reflects itself in what was seen at the hearing. It is interesting and sort of funny that the lowly Seattle PD Lieutenant appeared instead of the Chief (who is still trying to avoid questions about losing his service weapon from his unlocked car to a thief ).
Unfortunately, it's people like these who get the face time simply because they can postulate about the horrible ills that guns bring and they do so only from scripting and using their backers lies and skewed statistics. Hit them with truth and proper statistics based on all of the data available to support an argument, and they sink back into the woodwork.
Testimony from speakers are going to have to be factual and to the point. It will be difficult to sway opinion unless we carefully pick our words and how we present outselves to the Legislature. Professionalism in stating opinions and statements made in letters and phone calls must be carefully thought out and be pertinant to the specific issues at hand.
While we agree that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives us the RKBA, it may not be a big argument against specific bills. I really don't think that certain members of the Legislature are going to even see the 2nd Amendment as a reason why the bills should not pass.
We have to answer each of the bills with facts and solid reasons why they should pass or not. There are so many holes and errors in SB 5475 that it may take 10 pages in a letter to tell them why it is both unworkable, unfair, or simply not needed.
When I hear news like this my head aches. I'm doing my darndest to finish school and move back to Washington. I really miss the landscape. Now I'm starting to rethink that desire.
When will we know if any of these bills are going to go through?
However, Rep. Woods responded today with this E-mail;
"Thank you for your message regarding the issue of guns. There are
several gun bills being heard this week in the Senate. I understand
their chances of passing out of the Senate chambers are remote.
However, should they come to the House floor for a vote, I will not be
Thank you again for contacting me."
I always take politico-speek with a grain of salt, but at least I got one acceptable response.
Not that any of you actually miss me out there.
18 (c) defines an assault weapon as
"Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition"
Their definition of "magazine" includes stripper clips
any magazine containing more than ten rounds of ammunition when possessed by someone who also possesses the gun that it works in
There was about 400 hundred Pro gun people there, about one anti to every 30, they had to open up another room to put us in.
I do have complete bills on the assault and 50 caliber ban, they do not have senate numbers still.
The highlights of the assault weapon ban is follows:
A shotgun with a muzzle break (poly choke) would be included
A semiautomatic handgun that can hold more than ten rounds
A shotgun with military features
All semiautomatic and pump riffles that can hold more than ten rounds
Allot of cosmetic features placed many common guns as assault weapons
To keep one of these guns, you have to register it with the county sheriff, pay a yearly fee for each, and the sheriff has to conduct a yearly home inspection.
If you want out of the described above you must make the firearm rendering it incapable of shooting a projectile or turn it into the local sheriff unloaded to be destroyed. The same goes for the 50 cal almost.
They had the Seattle Police and Fire Departments testified for all of the gun bans but when asked in there long careers if they experienced a 50 caliber incident they could not recall. They had Washington Cease Fire there, Doctors for the gun bans, and most surprising to me was a gentleman that represented all of the Lutheran Churches in the state of Washington and he also represented The Washington Association of Churches. They believe that all hand guns and assault weapons should be destroyed.
This is just the highlights, this is far from over, but the gun owners made a strong standing today.
Allot of the Democrats kept saying the assault ban was identical to the federal one that just expired which is a lie, that did not require registering, fees,adding shotguns, and home inspections.
Separate names with a comma.