Bipartisan Bills Would Ban Exploding Targets..BILL PASSED WILL BECOME LAW

[bigtex]

First off before explaining the bill I need to explain a couple terms:

"Closed season" means the period between April 15th and October 15th, unless the department (DNR) designates different dates because of prevailing fire weather conditions.

"Exploding target" means a device:
(a) Designed for use or used as a target for ammunition or other projectiles;
(b) Consisting of a flammable substance or combination of substances; and
(c) Capable of exploding when struck by ammunition or other projectiles.

"Incendiary ammunition" means ammunition that is designed to ignite or explode upon impact with or penetration of a target or designed to trace its course in the air with a trail of smoke, chemical incandescence, or fire.

"Sky lantern" means an unmanned self-contained luminary device that uses heated air produced by an open flame or produced by another source to become or remain airborne.

Senate Bill 6199 sponsored by Senators Braun (D) and Hargrove (D), and House Bill 2427 sponsored by Reps Blake (D), Orcutt (R), Hurst (D), MacEwen (R), Kretz (R), Haigh (D), Ryu (D), and Buys (R) would make the detonation of an exploding target or release of a sky lantern illegal during the "closed season" on forest, brush, range, or grain areas illegal.

Outside of the "closed season" the bill would make it illegal to detonate an exploding target, release a sky lantern or fire incendiary ammunition on or over those lands where the person:
(a) Does not own or have lawful possession and control of the land in question; and
(b) Did not receive prior written permission for the activity from a person who owns or has lawful possession and control of the land in question.

A violation of these laws would be a misdemeanor.

[jackmaster]

what is the reason for waisting time and money on a bill that is so lame is this, if people want to shoot an exploding target then it should be ok as long as its done in a safe manner and arent causing forest fires or some crazy sheet, correct? how about we get a bill back on there for allowing hound huntn again     

[vandeman17]

I understand that they are trying to focus on safety and maybe preventing some fires but we have much bigger fish to fry right now. Lets focus on the bigger tasks at hand and IF we ever get those squared away, which we won't, then we can move to things like these.

[bigtex]

I understand that they are trying to focus on safety and maybe preventing some fires but we have much bigger fish to fry right now. Lets focus on the bigger tasks at hand and IF we ever get those squared away, which we won't, then we can move to things like these.

I completely understand where you are coming from. But there are over a thousand bills introduced every year in WA. This to me is more important then a bill which is simply fixing grammar. There is a reason why this legislature is in session for 60 days, it's so legislators can work on a multitude of issues 

[vandeman17]

I understand that they are trying to focus on safety and maybe preventing some fires but we have much bigger fish to fry right now. Lets focus on the bigger tasks at hand and IF we ever get those squared away, which we won't, then we can move to things like these.

I completely understand where you are coming from. But there are over a thousand bills introduced every year in WA. This to me is more important then a bill which is simply fixing grammar. There is a reason why this legislature is in session for 60 days, it's so legislators can work on a multitude of issues 

I agree it is more important then some bills but instead of having thousands of petty bills, lets have half that many ones that are relevant to the overall health and prosperity then we can shift gears later. 

[blackdog]

It simply gives land :twocents:owners more control over this activity on their land.

[bigtex]

I just wanted to add that this offense would not be considered a firearms offense under RCW 9 but rather a violation of state forest protection laws.

[ICEMAN]

Aren't illegal fireworks the cause of more damage to private property fires than the items listed here?

[bigtex]

Aren't illegal fireworks the cause of more damage to private property fires than the items listed here?

I think the reasoning is that there has been a surge in fires caused as a result of exploding targets the past few years.

[ICEMAN]

I have basically lost faith in our legislators to do the right thing. If fires are the issue, then lets prosecute those that start them. I am sure that you could prosecute some moron causing a fire by incindiary device.

Can you list a couple of existing RCWs that we could use to cite someone who negligently causes a fire?

Instead, with new "feel good" legislation, we are going to create new ways to target anything to do with firearms.

[blackdog]

This proposal comes from a large private landowner who allows the public to hunt and access their proerty for free. They had a fire on THEIR land and are asking for simple change in law that may prevent a future fire. Please share why the proposal is not a reasonable request.

[ICEMAN]

Are you saying that the individual responsible for the fire could not have been prosecuted for his negligence?

[bigtex]

I have basically lost faith in our legislators to do the right thing. If fires are the issue, then lets prosecute those that start them. I am sure that you could prosecute some moron causing a fire by incindiary device.

Can you list a couple of existing RCWs that we could use to cite someone who negligently causes a fire?

Instead, with new "feel good" legislation, we are going to create new ways to target anything to do with firearms.

I think the idea of this bill is to prevent fires, not to be able to charge someone who caused a fire. The below RCWs are ones that would be applicable to fires, the RCW 76 one is specific to wildfires. The problem the opposition will face is there are some powerful and pro-gun legislators in on this bill so if you try to say it's just another anti-gun bill they will just ignore it.

RCW 76.04.740
(1) It is unlawful to knowingly cause a fire or explosion and thereby place forest lands in danger of destruction or damage.
(2) This section does not apply to acts amounting to reckless burning in the first degree under RCW 9A.48.040.
(3) Terms used in this section shall have the meanings given to them in Title 9A RCW.
(4) A violation of this section shall be punished as a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9A.20.021.

RCW 9A.48.040
(1) A person is guilty of reckless burning in the first degree if he or she recklessly damages a building or other structure or any vehicle, railway car, aircraft, or watercraft or any hay, grain, crop, or timber whether cut or standing, by knowingly causing a fire or explosion.
(2) Reckless burning in the first degree is a class C felony.

RCW 9A.48.050
(1) A person is guilty of reckless burning in the second degree if he or she knowingly causes a fire or explosion, whether on his or her own property or that of another, and thereby recklessly places a building or other structure, or any vehicle, railway car, aircraft, or watercraft, or any hay, grain, crop or timber, whether cut or standing, in danger of destruction or damage.
(2) Reckless burning in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.

[bigtex]

They had a fire on THEIR land and are asking for simple change in law that may prevent a future fire.

Prevention is the reasoning for this bill. It's not so much being able to go after someone who caused a fire, but rather lets prevent the fires from even happening. 

[blackdog]

I'm saying the landowner wants some control on his property over the use of these products.