GOP lawmaker loses post after backing gun control

[Lucky1]

"So lets see we have a Republican in favor of raising fees, requiring DNA be provided for people arrested, blocking off public land access, and protecting gays... Last time I checked that isn't really "the Republican way" So why aren't people going after the Republicans who are sponsoring/backing those bills?"

Some of us try to "go after them". We campaign for people who we think will vote in ways that agree with our ideology. We call and write to our reps and senators about issues that concern us.

[grundy53]

So should every Republican who votes for higher fees be ran out of office? We all know R's are against higher fees/taxes

The main sponsor of legislation to raise snowmobile license fees by $20 over two years is a Republican.

Republicans in Olympia this year voted to give illegal immigrants financial aid for schooling. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/31/3022116/senate-oks-immigrant-financial.html

A Republican sponsored a bill to require the submission of DNA by any person charged with a crime (note I said charged, not convicted)

A Republican sponsored a bill that would prevent public access to waterways via public lands if there is no parking.

Last week all Republicans on the House Healthcare Committee voted in favor of making it illegal to offer medical efforts to change sexual orientation (in this case gay) for those under 18. This vote shocked many http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022868445_therapybanxml.html

So lets see we have a Republican in favor of raising fees, requiring DNA be provided for people arrested, blocking off public land access, and protecting gays... Last time I checked that isn't really "the Republican way" So why aren't people going after the Republicans who are sponsoring/backing those bills?

You obviously don't pay attention. Folks were upset about these examples. "Rino" was used a lot. Also, just because others decide to go against the people that put them in office doesn't make it right....

sent from my typewriter

[Lucky1]

Just about every gun rights group (including the NRA) was either completely against the bill, or had concerns with it. And the large majority of the members on this site was against it.

So why aren't we going after every Republican that voted for that .

  we are not clones. We dont always agree on everything. We always have concerns when congress is in session. We hang on to our wallets and our guns.

[bigtex]

So should every Republican who votes for higher fees be ran out of office? We all know R's are against higher fees/taxes

The main sponsor of legislation to raise snowmobile license fees by $20 over two years is a Republican.

Republicans in Olympia this year voted to give illegal immigrants financial aid for schooling. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/31/3022116/senate-oks-immigrant-financial.html

A Republican sponsored a bill to require the submission of DNA by any person charged with a crime (note I said charged, not convicted)

A Republican sponsored a bill that would prevent public access to waterways via public lands if there is no parking.

Last week all Republicans on the House Healthcare Committee voted in favor of making it illegal to offer medical efforts to change sexual orientation (in this case gay) for those under 18. This vote shocked many http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022868445_therapybanxml.html

So lets see we have a Republican in favor of raising fees, requiring DNA be provided for people arrested, blocking off public land access, and protecting gays... Last time I checked that isn't really "the Republican way" So why aren't people going after the Republicans who are sponsoring/backing those bills?

You obviously don't pay attention. Folks were upset about these examples. "Rino" was used a lot. Also, just because others decide to go against the people that put them in office doesn't make it right....

sent from my typewriter

I do pay attention, if you notice I post more about legislation in Olympia related to natural resources or guns then anybody else. Yes in some cases there was a lot of opposition from within the Republican party to some of these bills. But in some cases there wasn't.

[Lucky1]

Big Tex. You stirred the pot when you supported Mr Hope in your post. If I can ask a personal question. Do you think the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee?

[grundy53]

So should every Republican who votes for higher fees be ran out of office? We all know R's are against higher fees/taxes

The main sponsor of legislation to raise snowmobile license fees by $20 over two years is a Republican.

Republicans in Olympia this year voted to give illegal immigrants financial aid for schooling. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/31/3022116/senate-oks-immigrant-financial.html

A Republican sponsored a bill to require the submission of DNA by any person charged with a crime (note I said charged, not convicted)

A Republican sponsored a bill that would prevent public access to waterways via public lands if there is no parking.

Last week all Republicans on the House Healthcare Committee voted in favor of making it illegal to offer medical efforts to change sexual orientation (in this case gay) for those under 18. This vote shocked many http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022868445_therapybanxml.html

So lets see we have a Republican in favor of raising fees, requiring DNA be provided for people arrested, blocking off public land access, and protecting gays... Last time I checked that isn't really "the Republican way" So why aren't people going after the Republicans who are sponsoring/backing those bills?

You obviously don't pay attention. Folks were upset about these examples. "Rino" was used a lot. Also, just because others decide to go against the people that put them in office doesn't make it right....

sent from my typewriter

I do pay attention, if you notice I post more about legislation in Olympia related to natural resources or guns then anybody else. Yes in some cases there was a lot of opposition from within the Republican party to some of these bills. But in some cases there wasn't.

If you knew there was a lot of opposition then why did you use them as examples and ask why there wasn't opposition??

sent from my typewriter

[bigtex]

Big Tex. You stirred the pot when you supported Mr Hope in your post. If I can ask a personal question. Do you think the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee?

The legislature had no plans to actually try and pass the two gun initiatives this year, the hearings they had two weeks ago were simply symbolic. Everybody knew the initiatives were going to go the voters and not acted upon by the legislature.

And yes I do believe that the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee. Even had a gun control bill passed out of the committee it would have had to pass the entire House, then the Republican led Senate. It's not like if Hope was on the committee and gave the decisive vote we were all doomed. Of course Hope isn't going to say it's retaliation, he's not going to say his party is retaliating against him.

[bigtex]

So should every Republican who votes for higher fees be ran out of office? We all know R's are against higher fees/taxes

The main sponsor of legislation to raise snowmobile license fees by $20 over two years is a Republican.

Republicans in Olympia this year voted to give illegal immigrants financial aid for schooling. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/31/3022116/senate-oks-immigrant-financial.html

A Republican sponsored a bill to require the submission of DNA by any person charged with a crime (note I said charged, not convicted)

A Republican sponsored a bill that would prevent public access to waterways via public lands if there is no parking.

Last week all Republicans on the House Healthcare Committee voted in favor of making it illegal to offer medical efforts to change sexual orientation (in this case gay) for those under 18. This vote shocked many http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022868445_therapybanxml.html

So lets see we have a Republican in favor of raising fees, requiring DNA be provided for people arrested, blocking off public land access, and protecting gays... Last time I checked that isn't really "the Republican way" So why aren't people going after the Republicans who are sponsoring/backing those bills?

You obviously don't pay attention. Folks were upset about these examples. "Rino" was used a lot. Also, just because others decide to go against the people that put them in office doesn't make it right....

sent from my typewriter

I do pay attention, if you notice I post more about legislation in Olympia related to natural resources or guns then anybody else. Yes in some cases there was a lot of opposition from within the Republican party to some of these bills. But in some cases there wasn't.

If you knew there was a lot of opposition then why did you use them as examples and ask why there wasn't opposition??

Actually I never asked why there wasn't opposition...
I said we don't see people trying to oust Klippert for his DNA bill. Or Haler for his public land bill. Or Condotta for his snowmobile bill..

[snowpack]

bigtex, you said it yourself with the words 'hot-topic'.  The 'hot topic' issues are the ones that generally decide party fate and require the strictest adherence to party policy.  I agree the land access bill was not a very Republican thing nor the snowmobile fee, but I don't know that the party has solid stances regarding those issues.  Gun control...how do any Republicans not know the party stance on that one?  Practically hammered into stone.  Snowmobiles and parking lots likely won't affect a re-election or party clout, but voting for gun control sure will.  Many, many single issue voters out there right now keeping the Republican party afloat on that one issue (though the ACA is making its way up).
Sounds like this guy needed to be removed, too much of a wildcard.  If the party doesn't know what they're dealing with on gun control; he's likely a real liability across the board.

[Lucky1]

Hope, a former Seattle police officer from Lake Stevens, was replaced on the committee by the more conservative Larry Haler, a Hanford contractor from Richland.

The change, which was made at the beginning of this year’s legislative session, likely doomed the prospects of several bills establishing more gun restrictions — including the chances of Initiative 594 being approved in the Legislature instead of going to the November ballot.
[/quote]
The legislature had no plans to actually try and pass the two gun initiatives this year, the hearings they had two weeks ago were simply symbolic. Everybody knew the initiatives were going to go the voters and not acted upon by the legislature.
And yes I do believe that the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee. Even had a gun control bill passed out of the committee it would have had to pass the entire House, then the Republican led Senate. It's not like if Hope was on the committee and gave the decisive vote we were all doomed.
[/quote]
The article seems to disagree with you a little. I disagree with you a lot. I totally think they did the right thing removing him from the committee. Playing around with guns and playing around with gun laws are both dangerous. The second amendment is "liberties teeth" according to George Washington.

[bearpaw]

Good move by the repubs, how did that go on the movie "home alone"

"Get out of here you no good, dirty, filthy, stinking rat!

Probably not an exact quote, but you get the idea of my feelings on this issue.

For me, the 2nd Amendment is the "backbone" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[bigtex]

The article seems to disagree with you a little. I disagree with you a lot. I totally think they did the right thing removing him from the committee. Playing around with guns and playing around with gun laws are both dangerous. The second amendment is "liberties teeth" according to George Washington.

Tell me Lucky, how would keeping Hope on the committee change anything? Any bill out of that committee goes on to a full vote in the Democrat controlled House, then to a Republican led committee in the Senate and then to a full vote before the Republican led Senate and then to the governor.

So if a gun bill passes who can you blame? Everybody that voted in favor, not a single person, especially in 2013-14 when the Republicans control the Senate and the Dems the House. EVERY bill requires bipartisan support right now....

[grundy53]

The article seems to disagree with you a little. I disagree with you a lot. I totally think they did the right thing removing him from the committee. Playing around with guns and playing around with gun laws are both dangerous. The second amendment is "liberties teeth" according to George Washington.

Tell me Lucky, how would keeping Hope on the committee change anything? Any bill out of that committee goes on to a full vote in the Democrat controlled House, then to a Republican led committee in the Senate and then to a full vote before the Republican led Senate and then to the governor.

So if a gun bill passes who can you blame? Everybody that voted in favor, not a single person, especially in 2013-14 when the Republicans control the Senate and the Dems the House. EVERY bill requires bipartisan support right now....

Wow, there is some sound logic.....

[Special T]

George Bush used some similar logic on The prescription drugs medicare plan figuring that it would get thrown out by the SCOTUS. You MUST make a stand because the law of unintended consequences... The ONLY reason why  he should have passed it was because he believed it, if he believed it then I don't want him on the committee.

[huntnphool]

Big Tex. You stirred the pot when you supported Mr Hope in your post. If I can ask a personal question. Do you think the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee?

The legislature had no plans to actually try and pass the two gun initiatives this year, the hearings they had two weeks ago were simply symbolic. Everybody knew the initiatives were going to go the voters and not acted upon by the legislature.

And yes I do believe that the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee. Even had a gun control bill passed out of the committee it would have had to pass the entire House, then the Republican led Senate. It's not like if Hope was on the committee and gave the decisive vote we were all doomed. Of course Hope isn't going to say it's retaliation, he's not going to say his party is retaliating against him.

So are you saying he would have voted the other way if there was a chance of it passing?

Explain to me why he voted the way he did then, what possible reason would he vote for it if he knew his constituents were against it, regardless if he thought it would pass or not?