URGENT in WA State: Anti-Gun Hearing THIS TUESDAY. Please Read!!!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
copy of email I sent to those I communicate with...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its 230 in the morning and I couldn't sleep. Please read and think on this.
 
Would it be helpful to remind the representatives of I676?

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

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

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

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

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

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

An assault weapon is:

ANY semiautomatic pistol,

ANY semiautomatic, center fire rifle,

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


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

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

*Shotguns are going to be an interesting topic. The capacity of a shotgun depends on how long your ammunition is. A tubular magazine will hold fewer 3" shells than 2" shells for example. Now, I wonder how many aguilla mini-shells you can cram into the average HD shotty? ;)
 
Yes, I didn't mean to contrast the mechanisms. My point was that if anything raises the ire of the conservative part of the state (ie, everything except King county), it's gun bans. Why would representatives paint targets on themselves (npi) for the next election?
 
Yes, I didn't mean to contrast the mechanisms. My point was that if anything raises the ire of the conservative part of the state (ie, everything except King county), it's gun bans.

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

unfortunatly:
Why would representatives paint targets on themselves (npi) for the next election?
many of our congress critters are simply too stupid/shortsighted/elitist to realize this fact untill AFTER this mess is passed and we are stuck with it.
 
"Do they really want to give republican voters a battle cry in 2006?"

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

The door needs to be slammed shut hard on these people. Now. Write your friends, the papers, the legislature, the State capitol. To delay, is to allow them to think.."maybe".
 
Oh no! C_yeager's right! It bans all centerfire semiauto pistols and rifles! So the whole first half of the new bill is irrelevant, the real kicker is at the end. The first half is all about the features a semiautomatic gun cannot have, but then 18 (c) bans all semiautomatic guns (except .22 rifles).
:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
 
I just sent a letter to the editor of the Tacoma News Tribune, pointing out what C_yeager did. We'll see if they print it. If they do, I wonder if anyone here would be willing to defend my letter when it eventually gets attacked? They have a policy against writing more than once in 30 days. This would preclude me from responding. I'm afraid I lapsed a little into technical jargon so it might be easy for a mischevious anti to twist my words.

Jeff

(edited for clarity)
 
For those interested, this is how the media reported the hearing ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The state is spending about $270,000 a year on the added security measures.
 
Well, I got another response, this time from one of the members of the Judiciary commitee, Sen Brian Weinstien. Not surprising.......

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Brian Weinstein
State Senator
41st Legislative District"

Typical....."I understand what you want, but it dosen't matter anyway. I hate guns and think they are evil, and I know more than you."
 
You should reply to Sen. Weinstein with this paraphrase:

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff
 
Almost finished with Washington State

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

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

We need to make them remember 1994 and remind them that mid term elections are not all that far away.
 
After reading abaddons' post
Oh no! C_yeager's right! It bans all centerfire semiauto pistols and rifles! So the whole first half of the new bill is irrelevant, the real kicker is at the end. The first half is all about the features a semiautomatic gun cannot have, but then 18 (c) bans all semiautomatic guns (except .22 rifles).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E
 
Still no Reply

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

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

That's exactly the attitude that gives refugees from California such a bad reputation here. I'm trying to stay on the high road here and not go off topic, but last I heard there's a southbound lane on I-5 as well. Us natives like it here!
 
This issue concerns me a lot. I was raised and went to school in WA, and own a home there. I currently live and work in CA, and look forward to retiring back to my home in WA. The WA AWB would however, put those plans in serious jeopardy. ANY semi-auto rifle or pistol? Annual home inspections? Nuh Uhh...
 
How's this for a theory:

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

The other stuff is going to come up as "riders" to that bill, hoping to either sneak it in as a package or make us look unreasonable for killing the "no guns in the Capitol building" bill. The media obviously isn't getting that they're trying for more than the Capitol gun ban. What we need to focus on is keeping that bill clean so the other stuff doesn't get added in and passed as part of the package.
 
I agree with P35. But, i LIKE the fact that we can carry in the capitol building. I consider it a point of pride in our state and a significant show of mutual trust between the electorate and the people. Of course its obvious that they don't trust us anymore than we trust them. Frankly, there arent many elected representatives that I would allow into MY home with their armed guards so maybe it does make sense.

I just hope that the Democrats don't have the cohesion to simply pass these bills outright. That would just plain suck. I think one thing that we need to do is make sure that the media gets it straight. Otherwise this is all going to look like "common-sense gun control" to the masses.
 
I'd love to see a citizen during the public forum put forth the following(re: the no concealed carry in the capitol building): "That the public can carry firearms lawfully in the state capitol shows a trust between the legislators and their constituents. But what the legislature is saying now is that they no longer trust their constituents and feel that all of the people of Washington must be thought of as common criminals and thugs that can not be trusted." Followed with, "To carry a concealed firearm, the applicant must pass a background check to ensure he does not have a criminal record, but yet there is no such background check required for someone to hold office as a legislator of this state."

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

I'm not sure they do, especially in the Senate. If this stuff passes, I think a lot of Dems from east of the mountains could kiss their job goodbye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top