Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2013, 10:21:40 AM
A “firearm offender” is a person who has previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state of any firearm offense. A person is not a firearm offender under this chapter if any and all qualifying offenses have been the subject of an expungement, pardon, annulment, certificate, or rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted or a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.
"Firearm offense" means:
(a) Any felony offense that is a violation of chapter 9.41 RCW; firearm laws
(b) A violation of RCW 9A.36.045; Drive by shooting
(c) A violation of RCW 9A.56.300; Theft of firearm
(d) A violation of RCW 9A.56.310; Possessing a stolen firearm
(f) Any felony offense if the offender was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offense.
It is up to the judge to decide whether or not an individual is required to register. The following are the "guidelines" in determining whether to require the person to register, the court shall consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to:
(a) The person's criminal history;
(b) Whether the person has previously been found not guilty by reason of insanity of any offense in this state or elsewhere; and
(c) Evidence of the person's propensity for violence that would likely endanger persons.
Bill sponsors are
Republicans: Hope, Hargrove, Orcutt, Kretz, Hayes, Buys, Dalhquist, Holy, O’Ban, Fagan, Magendanz, Smith, Klippert, Warnick
Democrats: Pederson, Goodman, Roberts, Moscoso, Ryu, Bergquist
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1612 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1612)
Post by: whacker1 on February 07, 2013, 10:27:17 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2013, 10:37:12 AM
wow item (e) will put a lot of folks on that registry
That is a possibility. Especially since now all misdemeanors are now required to go before a judge. Prior to Summer 2012 that offense was a $271 ticket.
Post by: whacker1 on February 07, 2013, 10:38:40 AM
wow item (e) will put a lot of folks on that registry
That is a possibility. Especially since now all misdemeanors are now required to go before a judge. Prior to Summer 2012 that offense was a $271 ticket.
Yeah, that is what I was thinking. I know that was a common ticket that just got paid by many folks, very few that would contest it due to the circumstances.
Post by: Mudman on February 07, 2013, 10:42:53 AM
Post by: csaaphill on February 07, 2013, 04:42:38 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2013, 04:52:32 PM
Post by: Mudman on February 07, 2013, 05:05:49 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 07, 2013, 05:10:57 PM
I assume most people will have issues with the bill because of RCW 77.15.460 - loaded firearm in a motor vehicle, especially since it is a pretty common hunting violation.Mostly because that RCW can so easily be actual honest mistakes. The others on that list show (imo) some intent to break laws.
Post by: Mudman on February 07, 2013, 05:32:53 PM
Post by: csaaphill on February 07, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
Nobody has answered my question? Leos, dont you have this info at your fingertips already? Isnt it included in background checks? If yes then what does this leg. acoomplish?sorry ya i think so but again just my owm thought or opinion on that. Maybe it's just if you have warrents i think.
Post by: lokidog on February 07, 2013, 06:24:22 PM
Get rid of the loaded firearm one and maybe. ** By saying this, I do not condone road hunting with a loaded firearm in the vehicle. **
Post by: buckfvr on February 07, 2013, 06:42:55 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 07, 2013, 07:02:48 PM
What is the purpose? It is written to only to be viewed by Law Enforcement (for now)....
It is also written so that those on the registry only need to maintain their address with their local LEO, for a short period of time (four years). The requirement to register will expire after four years they originally register. Then it will expire and the record will be removed/destroyed. So answer me this; What is the purpose of this legislation, if not to harass someone who has this type of conviction? IF it is a good idea for four years, is it not a great idea for more?
My tin hat has pursuaded me to think that they will remove the four year expiration later, will make the registry public record like many of the sexual offender sites are, and that this is a perfect record of anyone with a misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor hunting type conviction to use when gun confiscation laws go into affect later.
Post by: csaaphill on February 07, 2013, 07:08:30 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2013, 08:09:05 PM
I gotta disagree with this one.
What is the purpose? It is written to only to be viewed by Law Enforcement (for now)....
It is also written so that those on the registry only need to maintain their address with their local LEO, for a short period of time (four years). The requirement to register will expire after four years they originally register. Then it will expire and the record will be removed/destroyed. So answer me this; What is the purpose of this legislation, if not to harass someone who has this type of conviction? IF it is a good idea for four years, is it not a great idea for more?
According to Rep Hope who is a current Law Enforcement Officer and the prime sponsor, it is essentially so that if an officer contacts the individual he automatically knows the individual is a "firearm offender" so basically be aware.
Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2013, 08:11:34 PM
Nobody has answered my question? Leos, dont you have this info at your fingertips already? Isnt it included in background checks? If yes then what does this leg. acoomplish?
Yes and no.
If an officer pulls you over (or however the contact happens) and runs you, the most that will come up is if their license is valid, any wants/warrants, and depending on the agency if they are a convicted felon. That is it, no history, etc.
An officer would have to run a criminal history report for them to find out what violations you have been convicted of. And they can't be like "hey let's check it out", there has to be a reason.
99% of the time it is just a wants/warrants check.
Post by: csaaphill on February 07, 2013, 08:12:27 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2013, 08:14:24 PM
There are already exceptions to the "including hunting" part of this that would have to be spelled out....we can carry a loaded hand gun, and it should be reflected in the wording as it is in the game law violation section of the game laws.
This really has nothing to do with game laws and hunting, but rather the act of having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.
A hunter hunting in Cle Elum with a loaded rifle in his vehicle is charged under RCW 77.15.460
A gangbanger driving in downtown Seattle with a loaded rifle in his vehicle is charged under RCW 77.15.460
RCW 77.15.460 is not simply for hunting.
Post by: Crunchy on February 07, 2013, 08:16:17 PM
Not 100% correct. Recent felony convictions come up. There are also several databases that can be accessed that dont necessary give you all convictions but state convictions.Nobody has answered my question? Leos, dont you have this info at your fingertips already? Isnt it included in background checks? If yes then what does this leg. acoomplish?
Yes and no.
If an officer pulls you over (or however the contact happens) and runs you, the most that will come up is if their license is valid, any wants/warrants, and depending on the agency if they are a convicted felon. That is it, no history, etc.
An officer would have to run a criminal history report for them to find out what violations you have been convicted of. And they can't be like "hey let's check it out", there has to be a reason.
99% of the time it is just a wants/warrants check.
Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2013, 08:18:02 PM
Not 100% correct. Recent felony convictions come up. There are also several databases that can be accessed that dont necessary give you all convictions but state convictions.Nobody has answered my question? Leos, dont you have this info at your fingertips already? Isnt it included in background checks? If yes then what does this leg. acoomplish?
Yes and no.
If an officer pulls you over (or however the contact happens) and runs you, the most that will come up is if their license is valid, any wants/warrants, and depending on the agency if they are a convicted felon. That is it, no history, etc.
An officer would have to run a criminal history report for them to find out what violations you have been convicted of. And they can't be like "hey let's check it out", there has to be a reason.
99% of the time it is just a wants/warrants check.
I said depending on the dispatch agency they will inform the officer if they have a felony conviction. I know of at least one dispatch agency that does not inform officers if the individual is a convicted felon. However, WSP for example will inform the LEOs they dispatch if the individual is a convicted felon.
Post by: Crunchy on February 07, 2013, 08:20:11 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2013, 08:23:18 PM
I thought we all had fany computers in our cars these days??
The agencies with money :chuckle:
A lot of the smaller agencies still don't have them.
I actually remember a few years ago when King Couny SO just got computers, a year or so later budget cuts came and they were talking about getting rid of the computers they just got :dunno:
Post by: Crunchy on February 07, 2013, 08:26:47 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 07, 2013, 08:29:51 PM
So not true Tex. KCSO has had them since 96-97. Although in the last year or two finally went to automated dispatching.
Was it toughbooks then? This was around 07/08, I had some KCSO detectives telling me they were possibly on the way out even though they just got them.
Post by: JLS on February 07, 2013, 08:39:22 PM
Cannot support this labeling registry/sex offender type leg. Cant leos already find this info readily? Arent background checks incorporated with this info? I say H-- no to this. Its redundant and a waste of $. Too much power for judges, what if its a liberal judge?
Usually it's the liberal judges that will give the best outcome for the defendants.
Post by: lokidog on February 07, 2013, 09:22:03 PM
Cannot support this labeling registry/sex offender type leg. Cant leos already find this info readily? Arent background checks incorporated with this info? I say H-- no to this. Its redundant and a waste of $. Too much power for judges, what if its a liberal judge?
Usually it's the liberal judges that will give the best outcome for the defendants.
Unless they happen to be a member of peta.... :bash:
Post by: Turner89 on February 07, 2013, 09:48:57 PM
I can see a alot of guys getting on the list with the loaded gun/vehicle charge. I have forgot myself when getting back to the truck at dark, and bone tired. Besides that part I don't mind it. I do think they should make it longer than 4yrs. Nut jobs can go dormant for awhile, and then flip :twocents:I gotta disagree with this one.
What is the purpose? It is written to only to be viewed by Law Enforcement (for now)....
It is also written so that those on the registry only need to maintain their address with their local LEO, for a short period of time (four years). The requirement to register will expire after four years they originally register. Then it will expire and the record will be removed/destroyed. So answer me this; What is the purpose of this legislation, if not to harass someone who has this type of conviction? IF it is a good idea for four years, is it not a great idea for more?
According to Rep Hope who is a current Law Enforcement Officer and the prime sponsor, it is essentially so that if an officer contacts the individual he automatically knows the individual is a "firearm offender" so basically be aware.
Post by: Special T on February 07, 2013, 11:13:50 PM
Post by: scotty1969 on February 08, 2013, 01:14:41 AM
The Road to hell is paved with good intentions..... I could see lots of unintended consequences from this. :twocents:couldn't agree more with you here,these people are helping take more guns from more people for BS reasons,when will it stop? JAYWALKING and i also agree that this same as sex offender leg is just as bad if not worse than when they tried putting online poker players on the same level as rapist and pedophiles
Post by: ICEMAN on February 08, 2013, 05:02:20 AM
I gotta disagree with this one.
What is the purpose? It is written to only to be viewed by Law Enforcement (for now)....
It is also written so that those on the registry only need to maintain their address with their local LEO, for a short period of time (four years). The requirement to register will expire after four years they originally register. Then it will expire and the record will be removed/destroyed. So answer me this; What is the purpose of this legislation, if not to harass someone who has this type of conviction? IF it is a good idea for four years, is it not a great idea for more?
According to Rep Hope who is a current Law Enforcement Officer and the prime sponsor, it is essentially so that if an officer contacts the individual he automatically knows the individual is a "firearm offender" so basically be aware.
I did not see wording which would cause this data to be entered to NCIC like a warrant would be, so the information would not necessarily be be immediately available at time of field contact. Dispatch would have to run a name/date of birth search of the Washington database to then look at a conviction record.
My point is that this does not sound like an officer safety enhancement to me. If not for officer safety, why create a list that expires in four years?
Post by: Mudman on February 08, 2013, 10:04:40 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 08, 2013, 05:45:42 PM
Exactly, Iceman has it nailed. Totally redundant list. Leo already can check and this would not change that system much. Expensive, more laws not needed and just another attack on gun rights. A sex offender type system? Really? What will come after this is established? Maybe gun owners could be added to this system once it is set up. Great system established and in place to track all gun owners and where they are registered and where they live! HMMMM? Canada???
Hey! I thought that you thought that I was a liberal commie! :chuckle:
Post by: Mudman on February 08, 2013, 06:26:33 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 08, 2013, 10:26:49 PM
Post by: csaaphill on February 09, 2013, 01:45:48 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 09, 2013, 07:45:20 AM
so this one goes to the way side then? no fight no nothing?
If everyone would just adopt my viewpoint things would be perfect. :chuckle:
Post by: TONTO on February 09, 2013, 08:33:55 AM
This really has nothing to do with game laws and hunting, but rather the act of having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.
A hunter hunting in Cle Elum with a loaded rifle in his vehicle is charged under RCW 77.15.460
A gangbanger driving in downtown Seattle with a loaded rifle in his vehicle is charged under RCW 77.15.460
RCW 77.15.460 is not simply for hunting.
Or an Oregon resident clam digging on LongBeach who forgets to unload the magazine in his "truck gun" before crossing the bridge. My brother has been cited for this, legal in OR to have a loaded mag as long as a round is not chambered, but if checked by WDFW while clam digging it is a violation :bdid: Funny thing is since he was clam digging he would have been legal with a loaded handgun, but the gun in question was a marlin mod 60 22lr behind the seat. Had another freind get the same citation, while fishing he decided to do some target shooting. He sat his 10/22 on the seat of his truck when it started raining, had the mag in the gun, alittle later a WDFW officer showed up :sry: too late BUSTED :yike: Again funny thing is he had a loaded 40 S&W in the truck too but got cited for the 10/22. Some real serious criminals right there.
Post by: Mudman on February 09, 2013, 10:01:40 AM
Ya and now Wa wants to treat them like a sex offender! And some people are supporting this! :yike: :bash:This really has nothing to do with game laws and hunting, but rather the act of having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.
A hunter hunting in Cle Elum with a loaded rifle in his vehicle is charged under RCW 77.15.460
A gangbanger driving in downtown Seattle with a loaded rifle in his vehicle is charged under RCW 77.15.460
RCW 77.15.460 is not simply for hunting.
Or an Oregon resident clam digging on LongBeach who forgets to unload the magazine in his "truck gun" before crossing the bridge. My brother has been cited for this, legal in OR to have a loaded mag as long as a round is not chambered, but if checked by WDFW while clam digging it is a violation :bdid: Funny thing is since he was clam digging he would have been legal with a loaded handgun, but the gun in question was a marlin mod 60 22lr behind the seat. Had another freind get the same citation, while fishing he decided to do some target shooting. He sat his 10/22 on the seat of his truck when it started raining, had the mag in the gun, alittle later a WDFW officer showed up :sry: too late BUSTED :yike: Again funny thing is he had a loaded 40 S&W in the truck too but got cited for the 10/22. Some real serious criminals right there.
Post by: Hi-Liter on February 09, 2013, 10:56:58 AM
Problem I see is that a lot of people are going to be cited and possibly lose their firearm rights. Good job Mike Hope for introducing this bill-I will make sure my vote doesn't go for you.
Did any one know that Mike Hope was a former Marine?
Post by: huntrights on February 09, 2013, 11:07:18 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1612
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1612.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1612.pdf)
Copy and paste House Judiciary Committee email addresses:
jamie.pedersen@leg.wa.gov; drew.hansen@leg.wa.gov; jay.rodne@leg.wa.gov; steve.oban@leg.wa.gov; roger.goodman@leg.wa.gov; mike.hope@leg.wa.gov; laurie.jinkins@leg.wa.gov; steve.kirby@leg.wa.gov; brad.klippert@leg.wa.gov; terry.nealey@leg.wa.gov; tina.orwall@leg.wa.gov; maryhelen.roberts@leg.wa.gov; matt.shea@leg.wa.gov
Copy and paste subject:
Please Oppose HB1612 – AN ACT Relating to firearm offenders
Copy and Paste message:
Dear members of the House Judiciary Committee:
I am writing to respectfully ask that you oppose HB1612 – AN ACT Relating to firearm offenders.
The opportunistic anti-gun/gun-control legislation flooding our legislative assemblies is riding on a wave of emotional hysteria brought on by the tragedy in Connecticut. Anti-gun legislators and others that have been misguided by the emotional currents will squeeze as much out of this emotionally based opportunity as they can. We are experiencing an unjustified and blatant demonizing and vilification of firearms and firearm owners as a result. This translates into significant threats to our Bill of Rights.
Please resist the temptation to jump on the emotional bandwagon by pursuing any legislation that further restricts our rights or abilities to legally own and use firearms. This would include prejudiced taxes or fees, restrictions on the purchase of ammunition or reloading supplies, registration of firearms, potential requirements to register as a firearms offender for a minor violation (i.e. RCW 77.15.460: Loaded rifle or shotgun in vehicle …), etc.
I noted, as have others, that all of the “firearm offenses” listed in HB1612 are class b felonies or any felony offense that is a violation of chapter 9.41 RCW; the noted exception is RCW 77.15.460. If law enforcement officers need to identify violators of felonies or misdemeanors, they already have the capability to do so if they have just cause to pursue that information. I oppose this legislation because of the inclusion of RCW 77.15.460 and that there is too much risk of abuse of such a registry.
Please don’t take the risk of registry abuse lightly. The Holocaust is an extreme example, but abuse can happen at many levels.
How a registry can lead to abuse:
Excerpts are from the following web site:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Chronology_1938.html
April 26, 1938:
The German government demands that all Jews register with the authorities all real estate and other assets exceeding 5000 marks. This is the first step toward expropriation of Jewish property; that is, Aryanization, a process whereby the Reich government seizes Jewish property and auctions it off to gentiles.
June 15, 1938:
“Asocial¬Action”: Arrest of all “previously convicted” Jews, including those prosecuted for traffic violations, and committing them to concentration camps (approx. 1,500 persons).
July 12, 1938:
The first 50 inmates arrive at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, about 20 miles from Berlin. Following Kristallnacht, 1,800 Jews are jailed here and subsequently murdered. By September 1939, the camp held 8,000 prisoners. In April 1940, the first crematorium was built. In March 1943, a gas chamber was added. In April 1945, as the Soviet Army advanced, 33,000 prisoners began a Death March. The Soviet Army found 3,000 survivors in the camp.
November 12, 1938:
The Nazis decide on a decree to remove all Jews from the German economy, society, and culture. Reinhard Heydrich suggests that every Jew be forced to wear a badge. Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels suggests that Jews be kept from using public parks. Hermann Göring mentions that Hitler told him on the phone on November 9 that if war breaks out, Germany “will first of all make sure of settling accounts with the Jews. [Hitler] is going to ask the other nations: ‘Why do you keep talking about the Jews? Take them!’” In the Nazi Party’s principal newspaper, Goebbels writes: “We want only one thing, that the world loves the Jews enough to rid us of them all.”
Fast forward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)
The Holocaust was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory. Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed. Over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your contact information]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Also, please consider contacting your state Senator and Representatives to respectfully ask them to oppose HB1612 should it make it to the House floor. You can use the same text that was used for the email to the House Judiciary Committee.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Post by: bigtex on February 09, 2013, 11:46:17 AM
I think the large majority of the public will not see any firearm violation as a "minor violation", if it was a "minor violation" it wouldn't be a criminal offense (misdemeanor in this case) but rather an infraction.
Honestly, the biggest issue/problem has already been noted, a large bipartisan support for this bill.
Post by: huntrights on February 09, 2013, 12:53:04 PM
JS,
I think the large majority of the public will not see any firearm violation as a "minor violation", if it was a "minor violation" it wouldn't be a criminal offense (misdemeanor in this case) but rather an infraction.
Honestly, the biggest issue/problem has already been noted, a large bipartisan support for this bill.
Where does RCW 77.15.460 (loaded rifle or shotgun in vehicle ..) fall in the case of the clam diggers? Would that be a felony or misdemeanor? My understanding is whatever the classification, it would fall under the 'firearm violation' definition in this Bill.
My personal opinion is that we should be concerned about central registries of individuals. Perhaps they start with good intentions, but they may lend themselves to abuses at a later time. Although the legislation says the information will not be available to the public, will it stay that way? Remember the venomous behavior of the Journal News in New York as they published maps with the names and addresses of law-abiding owners of firearms with legal permits. Some of the anti-gun factions in this state are equally as venomous.
Post by: FisherKing on February 09, 2013, 12:58:08 PM
Uh Hell No..
Post by: bigtex on February 09, 2013, 01:10:08 PM
JS,
I think the large majority of the public will not see any firearm violation as a "minor violation", if it was a "minor violation" it wouldn't be a criminal offense (misdemeanor in this case) but rather an infraction.
Honestly, the biggest issue/problem has already been noted, a large bipartisan support for this bill.
Where does RCW 77.15.460 (loaded rifle or shotgun in vehicle ..) fall in the case of the clam diggers? Would that be a felony or misdemeanor? My understanding is whatever the classification, it would fall under the 'firearm violation' definition in this Bill.
No matter what the situation is RCW 77.15.460 is a misdemeanor. Yes, it is an offense that would be considered a "firearm violation" under this bill.
Like I said in another post, RCW 77.15.460 is not just applicable to loaded firearms while hunting, but everytime someone has a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Someone hunting with a loaded rifle in a vehicle is charged under RCW 77.15.460, and someone driving down 1st Ave in Seattle with a loaded rifle in their vehicle is charged under RCW 77.15.460
Post by: csaaphill on February 09, 2013, 01:17:36 PM
Post by: csaaphill on February 09, 2013, 09:23:46 PM
People don't be blind on this, just because this one seems harmless, since were all perfect angels and all and think this will only affect those types of people. But with whats being done in the whole country were all to be deemed felons sooner or later unless your to follow lock step.
Post by: bigtex on March 10, 2013, 02:54:35 PM
Post by: huntrights on March 10, 2013, 09:58:11 PM
I believe there are great risks with central registries. :twocents:
Post by: csaaphill on March 10, 2013, 10:24:23 PM
I'm thinking too that this will include the domestic violence people too, but not sure.
I know people will think this is ok but soon were all going to be criminals unless we bow!!!
Now how will they enforce these laws, and confiscations? WIll they nullify thier 4th ammendment and 5th amendment rights and 6th amendments to do this?
What about the ones that will be ilegedly inocently thrown on this list? I don't know but someone breaks into my door at night better be my wife or mom or they will get lead poisoning!!!!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-gun-backlog-20130307,0,1291214.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-gun-backlog-20130307,0,1291214.story)
Post by: bigtex on March 12, 2013, 03:22:44 PM
This bill passed the state House today by a vote of 85-10 and now heads to the Senate. Those opposed were: Chandler, Condotta, Crouse, Kristiansen, MacEwen, Overstreet, Pike, Scott, Shea, and Taylor.
Post by: huntrights on March 12, 2013, 04:56:43 PM
Central registries have historically been abused.
Post by: bigtex on March 12, 2013, 05:02:05 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 12, 2013, 05:04:53 PM
3/12 Update
This bill passed the state House today by a vote of 85-10 and now heads to the Senate. Those opposed were: Chandler, Condotta, Crouse, Kristiansen, MacEwen, Overstreet, Pike, Scott, Shea, and Taylor.
Who need to see who voted for it, so next elections to can be sent home! :bash: :bash:
Post by: csaaphill on March 13, 2013, 02:12:41 AM
I fully believe this has far more reaching consequences than even 1588 will or would have.
This one gets the anti gunners meat hooks into what they're real agenda is which is out right confiscation.
California is already doing this, but instead of going after high end offenders like gang members, and such they are going after small time people.
Post by: Special T on March 13, 2013, 07:12:11 AM
Post by: h2ofowlr on March 13, 2013, 07:42:06 AM
Their could be a number of people in violation of this rule if they purchased one at a gun show or off an AD etc., if the used gun they purchased wasn't ran through the system. This one could potentially hang up some people.
Post by: Special T on March 13, 2013, 07:49:52 AM
Post by: csaaphill on March 14, 2013, 02:58:19 AM
weather it's a done deal or not I'd like to still fight it.
Post by: csaaphill on March 14, 2013, 03:11:02 AM
Post by: csaaphill on March 14, 2013, 03:27:18 AM
Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
jerome.delvin@leg.wa.gov
Your message can't be delivered because delivery to this address is restricted.
Post by: Mudman on March 14, 2013, 03:38:12 AM
Post by: huntrights on March 14, 2013, 01:34:59 PM
Call the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000.
I just called; it only takes a minute or two.
I have to add another note which I also told the hotline. I am not opposed to law enforcement having access to criminal records; they have that now. I am opposed to central registries because of their history of being abused by governments and the media.
Post by: bigtex on March 14, 2013, 02:11:00 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 14, 2013, 02:45:45 PM
Post by: huntrights on March 15, 2013, 11:47:17 AM
To have your voice heard -
Call the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000
Post by: blackdog on March 15, 2013, 06:45:52 PM
Post by: csaaphill on March 15, 2013, 09:52:04 PM
I have been watching the progress of HB 1612, maintaining a registry of firearms offenders with interest, and doing just a bit of analysis on the floor votes.
You are probably aware that HB 1612 passed the House with 85 yes votes and 10 no votes, with 3 excused. That is a tall vote count in favor, including plenty of Republicans. You definitely have to turn the tide for this bill to not proceed.
To be sure, I empathize with your case. But just to illustrate the challenge, apparently the case FOR HB 1612 took hold deep on the Republican side in addition to all the Democrat yes votes, including: Republican Representatives Alexander, Angel, Buys, Carlyle, Dahlquist, DeBolt, Fagan, Haler, Hargrove, Harris, Hawkins, Hayes, Holy, Hope, Johnson, Klippert, Kochmar, Kretz, Magendanz, Manweller, Morrell, Nealey, O'Ban, Orcutt, Parker, Rodne, Ross, Schmick, Short, Smith, Vick, Walsh, Warnick, Wilcox.
This count exercise was important for me to wrap my head around the sense of from where this bill has come, noting that it has received significant support from people who are generally solid 2nd Amendment supporters. You have much to overcome in defeating this bill.
While HB 1612 has now been assigned in the Senate Law and Justice Committee, the best advice I can offer for your stated interests is to contact the committee Chairman Senator Mike Padden, a former judge, and make your most compelling case that HB 1612 should not be heard. Committee chairs control the agenda of their respective committees, which bills get heard and have even a chance to advance, and which bills do not receive a hearing and die that way. I do not know the predisposition of Senator Padden and cannot comment as to whether he would entertain your position. However, while there is not yet a hearing scheduled for HB 1612, the opportunity is now to make your case.
If HB 1612 gets slated for a hearing, then the gates are open that your efforts to contact committee members has purpose. Senator Roach is already familiar with your points. The other two Republican members of the L&J Committee are Senators Mike Carrell and Kirk Pearson. Those two, along with Sen. Roach and Chairman Padden would control whether HB 1612 would be voted out of committee. I would mention the three Democrat members of the committee by name, but I do not believe you will make progress with them at all, respectfully. Put your energy where it counts.
If HB 1612 gets a hearing, I strongly recommend that you appear at that hearing and sign up to give testimony. I recommend boiling down to your most compelling points and make them straight up front. You only get so much time at the mic, so be brief and to the point. Bring like-minded friends to either also testify or show support. Give it your best showing and presentation, be straight forward, engaged, impassioned but reasonable. Help these Senators understand your case in a principled sense. They’re good listeners, especially when someone is making perfect sense.
As I have listened to interviews on HB 1612, the case for the bill is being made on the basis of people who commit serious gun crimes having lesser gun crimes in their past. I suggest that you study the pro case very well. In argumentative cases, I have always found I do better when I understand the opposition and know their argument inside and out. Look for the flaws in what they claim, where they are going overboard in their assumptions and where they can just become flat footed when they’ve been caught stretching the truth. Have good facts and stats, not tons, but just enough to make your case, especially when challenging the opposition. I cannot argue this case for you, as a staff person I am prohibited for lobbying. But I do recognize that you have a case to make, as your email clearly details. I suggest that a bit of opposition research may help sharpen your points.
Best of luck to you. I will be watching this bill and remembering the case you made, and watching for your progress.
Sincerely,
Charlie Kirry
Aide to Senator Pam Roach
a response i got
anyone near Oly if you oppose this bill i'd sure go and be heard
Post by: bigtex on April 05, 2013, 10:23:14 AM
HB 1612 unanimously passed the Senate Law and Justice Committee which consists of Senators Padden, Darneille, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Pearson, and Roach. The bill now goes on to the Ways and Means Committee which will look at the costs of the bill, then the rules committee and finally up for a Senate vote then to the Governor.
Post by: Jingles on April 05, 2013, 01:31:19 PM
Post by: npaull on April 05, 2013, 01:38:23 PM
Quote
Registration turns into confiscation
Oh crap! My car is registered!
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 05, 2013, 01:39:09 PM
Post by: csaaphill on April 05, 2013, 05:54:04 PM
For now this may not be as bad as it sounds, but given time it will.
I look to this covering all Felons, and misdemeanors eventually, along with DUI's, drunkards much like CT's laws or NY's where only people of high moral charactor get a pistol licence. Simple assault, people that have been convicted of driving without a licence, No car ins, speeding tickets, shoplifters, peolple that have written bad checks, People who for one reason or another are on a Gov watch list like anyone who is against gun ctrl, Christains unless they support the powers that be.
Just anyone who doesn't support the ptb.
Post by: christopheri on April 05, 2013, 06:11:57 PM
QuoteRegistration turns into confiscation
Oh crap! My car is registered!
Really? :rolleyes: :chuckle:
Post by: snowpack on April 05, 2013, 06:21:57 PM
QuoteRegistration turns into confiscation
Oh crap! My car is registered!
In parts of the EU, the vehicle registration is used to increase taxes over the life of the vehicle. With laws sprouted from carbon credits and clean air efforts, they make it more and more difficult to own an aging vehicle. The governments can see 'who' owns what vehicle and how to tax individuals. If the tax isn't paid, the vehicle is seized (confiscated). The thought being that newer technology is increasingly friendly to the environment and the tax provides incentives to continually upgrade. They have exceptions for some vehicles, like a 25 year old vehicle can be permitted under classic/antique status. I think Belgium is the worst with the taxes and when a vehicle exceeds 5 years old the taxes are higher than the cost of a new vehicle. The older cars go for resale in E Europe.
Point being, when the government has detailed databases on your possessions and they pass laws, they can really get intrusive. Obama has said a few times how he wants to get old vehicles off the road here. They offered Cash for Clunkers and he is promising incentives/directing challenges to the auto industry for 'new improved' and 'alternative energy' cars. How long until a few in Congress think they need to speed the process and seize outdated cars here? Not much different with guns (registration to confiscation).
Post by: huntrights on April 05, 2013, 06:40:31 PM
Testifying takes additional time and fortitude, but is is also very effective if enough people show up to do so. Keep calling and writing those emails; let your state Senators know that you oppose this legislation and tell them why. Read through the thread again to understand why central registries are dangerous. I have testified, made my phone calls, and written my emails. The volume of communications are what makes a difference, so each and every one of you needs to act as well. Urge your family, friends, and colleagues to do the same.
Central registries have a history of being abused by governments and the media. That's just the way it is; they are not good because of that fact.
Here is an excerpt from a prior post in this thread:
How a registry can lead to abuse:
Excerpts are from the following web site:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Chronology_1938.html
April 26, 1938:
The German government demands that all Jews register with the authorities all real estate and other assets exceeding 5000 marks. This is the first step toward expropriation of Jewish property; that is, Aryanization, a process whereby the Reich government seizes Jewish property and auctions it off to gentiles.
June 15, 1938:
“Asocial¬Action”: Arrest of all “previously convicted” Jews, including those prosecuted for traffic violations, and committing them to concentration camps (approx. 1,500 persons).
----------------------------------------
This is an example of media abuse: The Journal News in New York had no remorse or ethical issues, in their view, with publishing the names and addresses of firearm permit holders in interactive maps on the internet for the entire world to see. They had absolutely no regard for the privacy of those individuals or their safety. The last I heard was they were still trying to get their hands on more lists.
Post by: bigtex on April 05, 2013, 07:05:41 PM
Uphill battle if you are going to try and get this not to pass. The bill only has one more hearing, which is in front of the Ways & Means Committee which means they ONLY will look into the MONEY/COST of the bill. These committees are not policy committees.
Post by: huntrights on April 06, 2013, 08:00:44 AM
It is very sad that to see our country plummet further away from its foundations of individual rights and freedoms.
If you understand the risks of central registries such as what is being proposed in HB1612, it is still not too late to act. Let your Senators hear your voice.
Post by: csaaphill on April 06, 2013, 09:16:49 PM
give one the feeling of bugging out eh?QuoteRegistration turns into confiscation
Oh crap! My car is registered!
In parts of the EU, the vehicle registration is used to increase taxes over the life of the vehicle. With laws sprouted from carbon credits and clean air efforts, they make it more and more difficult to own an aging vehicle. The governments can see 'who' owns what vehicle and how to tax individuals. If the tax isn't paid, the vehicle is seized (confiscated). The thought being that newer technology is increasingly friendly to the environment and the tax provides incentives to continually upgrade. They have exceptions for some vehicles, like a 25 year old vehicle can be permitted under classic/antique status. I think Belgium is the worst with the taxes and when a vehicle exceeds 5 years old the taxes are higher than the cost of a new vehicle. The older cars go for resale in E Europe.
Point being, when the government has detailed databases on your possessions and they pass laws, they can really get intrusive. Obama has said a few times how he wants to get old vehicles off the road here. They offered Cash for Clunkers and he is promising incentives/directing challenges to the auto industry for 'new improved' and 'alternative energy' cars. How long until a few in Congress think they need to speed the process and seize outdated cars here? Not much different with guns (registration to confiscation).
Lest me it does.
Post by: Special T on April 07, 2013, 07:33:57 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 07, 2013, 08:15:04 AM
3/12 Update
This bill passed the state House today by a vote of 85-10 and now heads to the Senate. Those opposed were: Chandler, Condotta, Crouse, Kristiansen, MacEwen, Overstreet, Pike, Scott, Shea, and Taylor.
Dan K, Elizabeth S....good job
MESSAGE:
Thank you BOTH for voting against this bill!! I'm pretty sure senator Pearson will vote to kill this thing in the Senate. He is getting a copy of this too
Governments and lists have never been a good combination when it comes to liberty, and this Nation and state were created with Liberty and freedom as the number 1 goal. This bill is a BAD idea heading our state down the slippery slope of tyranny. Liberals don't care.
What will be next...a run on crossbows?
Then a slew of laws regarding them??
Thanks again!!
Post by: bigtex on April 07, 2013, 09:56:10 AM
3/12 Update
This bill passed the state House today by a vote of 85-10 and now heads to the Senate. Those opposed were: Chandler, Condotta, Crouse, Kristiansen, MacEwen, Overstreet, Pike, Scott, Shea, and Taylor.
Dan K, Elizabeth S....good job
MESSAGE:
Thank you BOTH for voting against this bill!! I'm pretty sure senator Pearson will vote to kill this thing in the Senate. He is getting a copy of this too
Pearson voted in favor of the bill in the Law and Justice Committee........
Post by: huntrights on April 07, 2013, 08:06:03 PM
Post by: csaaphill on April 07, 2013, 08:32:52 PM
Like Claifornia to confiscate peoples guns. They will start with those that no one really cares for and then work their way up.
Here's the real question. Why do they need a central registry when the information is already available to law enforcement? Central registries have a long history of abuse. There is no good for the people that will result from such a central registry. They are also adding another expense to an already strained budget for something they don't need.
I know tin foil moment but why else pass this kind of thing?
Post by: Mudman on April 07, 2013, 09:59:39 PM
Post by: Worldhunter on April 07, 2013, 10:17:12 PM
Post by: csaaphill on April 08, 2013, 12:46:03 AM
They will betting older rigs off the road here in WA now that you can no longer get Ethenol free fuel. Its now at 10% and will soon be at 15%. You can get an additive however that just increases the cost of fuel.ya well that's what they're going to do ive even read that Obama wants to phase us out like that.
Im ecological minded as well I know were heading to 7-10 billion people very soon, but forcing er coercing people to do stuff isn't what i call freedom.
Post by: huntrights on April 08, 2013, 09:09:06 AM
Your voices must be heard. If you have not been continuously writing and calling your represntatives, then you have given up and resigned yourselves to the loss of your rights and freedoms.
LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD!
Post by: oldcamper on April 08, 2013, 10:50:31 AM
[/quote]
I have searched hard and have still not found a good sauce for any roads. :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on April 08, 2013, 11:06:54 AM
Get rid of the loaded firearm one and maybe. ** By saying this, I do not condone road hunting with a loaded firearm in the vehicle. **
I have searched hard and have still not found a good sauce for any roads. :dunno:
[/quote]
Huh?
The provision for the loaded firearm offense was removed.
Post by: Special T on April 08, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
Post by: csaaphill on April 08, 2013, 09:01:34 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 09, 2013, 07:28:33 AM
Your voices must be heard. If you have not been continuously writing and calling your represntatives, then you have given up and resigned yourselves to the loss of your rights and freedoms.
LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD!
Off went another.....
Post by: huntrights on April 09, 2013, 09:35:20 AM
Thank you. I hope more people get engaged.
The incessant political battles can be exhuasting, but we cannot stop pushing back.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 09, 2013, 05:29:27 PM
3/12 Update
This bill passed the state House today by a vote of 85-10 and now heads to the Senate. Those opposed were: Chandler, Condotta, Crouse, Kristiansen, MacEwen, Overstreet, Pike, Scott, Shea, and Taylor.
Dan K, Elizabeth S....good job
MESSAGE:
Thank you BOTH for voting against this bill!! I'm pretty sure senator Pearson will vote to kill this thing in the Senate. He is getting a copy of this too
Pearson voted in favor of the bill in the Law and Justice Committee........
So he got this this morning....
I hear you voted for this in committee. Please don't support it on the floor!
Governments and lists have never been a good combination when it comes to liberty, and this Nation and state were created with Liberty and freedom as the number 1 goal. This bill is a BAD idea heading our state down the slippery slope of tyranny. Liberals don't care.
Just how long before the "loaded firearm in vehicle" is re included in this. Just including that as an offense qualifying for this "list" in the original bill shows how a" low information voters" mind works
And I received this.....
Jim
Just a quick note to let you know that while on the floor today Sen. Pearson wrote you a substantive reply with his thoughts about 1612. I dropped it in the mail to you this afternoon.
Sincerely,
Cameron
C.M. Bailey
Senior Legislative Assistant to Senator Kirk Pearson
115 Irv Newhouse Building
360-786-7676
Kind of sounds like he still likes it
Post by: csaaphill on April 09, 2013, 11:56:21 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 17, 2013, 05:02:00 PM
The bill passed the Senate today with the following senators voting against: Becker, Brown, Ericksen, Holmquist Newbry, Honeyford, Pearson, and Smith
There is one change to the bill in the senate. Instead of it being a "registry" it is now a "database"
Post by: csaaphill on April 17, 2013, 05:32:42 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 17, 2013, 05:33:13 PM
what? huh how does that change anything? + don't thye already keep a database?
Sounds better
Post by: csaaphill on April 17, 2013, 05:36:24 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 17, 2013, 05:43:22 PM
4/17 UpdatePearson eh? He did send me a letter saying how he thought at the time (justifying his committe vote) that it wasn't a problem for us Law abiders.I wonder why he changed? Did the bill change?
The bill passed the Senate today with the following senators voting against: Becker, Brown, Ericksen, Holmquist Newbry, Honeyford, Pearson, and Smith
There is one change to the bill in the senate. Instead of it being a "registry" it is now a "database"
Post by: bigtex on April 17, 2013, 05:46:43 PM
4/17 UpdatePearson eh? He did send me a letter saying how he thought at the time (justifying his committe vote) that it wasn't a problem for us Law abiders.I wonder why he changed? Did the bill change?
The bill passed the Senate today with the following senators voting against: Becker, Brown, Ericksen, Holmquist Newbry, Honeyford, Pearson, and Smith
There is one change to the bill in the senate. Instead of it being a "registry" it is now a "database"
No change.
It's not all that uncommon for a rep/senator to vote for it in committee then against in the full vote.
Many times the committee is more of a personal opinion vote while the full house vote is a party line vote.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 17, 2013, 05:51:34 PM
4/17 UpdateAre there 2 pearsons in the senate Tex?
The bill passed the Senate today with the following senators voting against: Becker, Brown, Ericksen, Holmquist Newbry, Honeyford, Pearson, and Smith
There is one change to the bill in the senate. Instead of it being a "registry" it is now a "database"
Post by: bigtex on April 17, 2013, 05:53:16 PM
4/17 UpdateAre there 2 pearsons in the senate Tex?
The bill passed the Senate today with the following senators voting against: Becker, Brown, Ericksen, Holmquist Newbry, Honeyford, Pearson, and Smith
There is one change to the bill in the senate. Instead of it being a "registry" it is now a "database"
Nope I messed up in my reply message to ya :bash:. Pearson voted for in committee, against in full vote
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 17, 2013, 05:54:13 PM
4/17 UpdateAre there 2 pearsons in the senate Tex?
The bill passed the Senate today with the following senators voting against: Becker, Brown, Ericksen, Holmquist Newbry, Honeyford, Pearson, and Smith
There is one change to the bill in the senate. Instead of it being a "registry" it is now a "database"
Nope I messed up in my reply message to ya :bash:. Pearson voted for in committee, against in full vote
THNX!
Post by: csaaphill on April 18, 2013, 12:06:42 AM