Revived gun-control bill approved 97-0 in state House..BILL PASSED

[Lucky1]

(A) Require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon;

Does that mean the person would have to give up his gun, knife, axe, baseball bat, archery bow, etc?

I really do think we have enough gun laws. We just need to enforce the ones we have. I think enforcement of existing laws would solve most of the problems they are trying to address with this legislation. A good number of the perpetrators of the criminal actions they are trying to stop are repeat offenders who should still be locked up.

That's my 

[Heredoggydoggy]

All that means is if they take away all the guns, then we buy Golf Clubs.

[dscubame]

The government can't get what they do not know I have.

[Heredoggydoggy]

(A) Require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon.

Does that mean that all the gang members will just give up their weapons?   Hahahahahaha!  That's a good one!   

[stuckalot]

Our "justice" system especially when it come to "family" court is Russian roulette at best, on either side, complete joke in my opinion.

[SCRUBS]

We do not need any more gun laws!  Why does anyone think that the bad guys are going to obey any new laws if they don't obey current laws?

It`s not about the criminals,it`s about disarming the law abiding folks one law at a time...

[huntnphool]

 

[SCRUBS]

Very recently (week or so ago)one of my house reps (R) had a phone town hall meeting, he stated very clearly there was no "gun legislation" that he knew of

I sent him an email letting him know, I would remember his vote on this next election cycle.

[csaaphill]

um ya torn some but not a whole lot, for give an inch they will take a mile.
I'm reading more and more on how some in CT are resisting these kinds of things so I'd hope people would here as well.
Meaning take them out of state for the time being if they have too.
Ya all a women has to do is call them and bam your toast anymore.
SO ya against this for the most part!

[bigtex]

Very recently (week or so ago)one of my house reps (R) had a phone town hall meeting, he stated very clearly there was no "gun legislation" that he knew of

Would you be willing to say who this is? 

[Heredoggydoggy]

Very recently (week or so ago)one of my house reps (R) had a phone town hall meeting, he stated very clearly there was no "gun legislation" that he knew of

I sent him an email letting him know, I would remember his vote on this next election cycle.

That's probably the best thing to do.  Telling them that how they vote might cost them some votes in their next bid for re-election strikes fear into the people we elect to "Represent" us! 

[SCRUBS]

Very recently (week or so ago)one of my house reps (R) had a phone town hall meeting, he stated very clearly there was no "gun legislation" that he knew of

Would you be willing to say who this is? 

When you disclose your name, I`ll disclose this persons

[bigtex]

Very recently (week or so ago)one of my house reps (R) had a phone town hall meeting, he stated very clearly there was no "gun legislation" that he knew of

Would you be willing to say who this is? 

When you disclose your name, I`ll disclose this persons

Barney.....Barney Fife..... 

[huntrights]

Definitely don't like this law.  Years ago when I was going through a divorce I was visiting my parents out of State and my wife's attorney convinced her to file a restraining order on me, even though there was no valid reason.  It was just to be vindictive and keep me from coming back to my own home when I returned.  She even allowed the Sheriff's Dept. to confiscate all of my firearms while I was gone.  I had to go to court just to get my firearms returned!  Anyone can file a restraining order in this State and you don't have to prove a thing in order to get it!

 
This type abuse of process may happen more often than we are aware of.  This law may result in wrongly confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens due to the frivolous, vindictive, or unwarranted filing of a restraining orders.  Will a judge take a chance in these types of cases?  How will the definition of "credible threat" be applied equally and fairly?  This may result in situations of guilty until proven innocent.  There may be legitimate cases in which there is a "credible threat"; however, the possible abuse of the restraining order and other no-contact order processes need to be addressed.  Are there any consequences for filing frivolous, vindictive, or unwarranted restraining orders?  If there are serious consequences for abusing the restraining order process, then the law may not be so ominous.  The reaction to an unwarranted restraining order may end up being like suspending a second grader from school because he chewed a pop-tart into a shape resembling a gun (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/anne-arundel-second-grader-suspended-for-chewing-his-pastry-into-the-shape-of-a-gun/2013/03/04/44c4bbcc-84c4-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html).  This type of law should not be allowed to pass without ensuring the restraining orders and similar no-contact orders are applied only in cases of real and verifiable "credible threats".

All should take a very close look at this bill and consider the possible abuses and unintended consequences:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1840

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1840-S.E.pdf

[KFhunter]

When you keep ACA in the back of your mind then look at all this new legislation it get's scary quickly.

It appears to me a lot of chess pieces are in play for the eventual check mate 4-5 moves away.