Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 11:17:12 AM
Senate Bill 5737 would ban the sale of “assault weapons” in WA. Here are the terms you need to know:
(20) "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:
(i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located rear of the trigger;
(ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
(iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a telescoping stock;
(iv) A barrel shroud;
(v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
(vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
(b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(c) 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;
(d) Any firearm with a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppression or noise suppression device;
(e) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
(f) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
(g) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of any person.
(21) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
(22) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.
(23) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
(24) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
(25) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault weapon.
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5737&year=2013 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5737&year=2013)
Post by: Special T on February 13, 2013, 11:21:29 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on February 13, 2013, 11:22:36 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 13, 2013, 11:22:46 AM
Wow!
Post by: BIGINNER on February 13, 2013, 11:23:32 AM
So now pump action rifles and shotguns are assault weapons too? :yike:
Wow!
get it right even bolt actions with thumbhole or pistol grip stocks
Post by: snowpack on February 13, 2013, 11:28:50 AM
So now pump action rifles and shotguns are assault weapons too? :yike:Bolt action shotguns that accept detachable mags, rifles with muzzlebreaks, I didn't see an exemption for .22s with tube mags greater than 10 rds.
Wow!
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on February 13, 2013, 11:32:45 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 13, 2013, 11:38:48 AM
22 rifles are exempt because it specifically says "centerfire" rifle.
This is where most guns wouldn't meet the definition:
Quote
that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition
Post by: motg9_6 on February 13, 2013, 11:47:40 AM
Post by: CP on February 13, 2013, 11:48:36 AM
Actually very few rifles and shotguns we use for hunting would be affected by this.
22 rifles are exempt because it specifically says "centerfire" rifle.
This is where most guns wouldn't meet the definition:Quotethat is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition
There are a lot of semiauto’s and pumps that take a detachable mag (if it can take a mag, it can take a mag capable of holding more than 10 rounds) and have thumbhole stock or muzzle brake. And a Savage Model 220F – assault weapon, really?
Post by: yote on February 13, 2013, 11:57:29 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 13, 2013, 12:01:12 PM
Actually very few rifles and shotguns we use for hunting would be affected by this.
22 rifles are exempt because it specifically says "centerfire" rifle.
This is where most guns wouldn't meet the definition:Quotethat is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition
There are a lot of semiauto’s and pumps that take a detachable mag (if it can take a mag, it can take a mag capable of holding more than 10 rounds) and have thumbhole stock or muzzle brake. And a Savage Model 220F – assault weapon, really?
Sorry I was thinking more of semi auto shotguns and pump shoguns when I wrote that. I should have specified that most shotguns wouldn't qualify as an assault weapon.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
"Dear Senator Benton,
This is one of the most poorly written of the numerous attempts to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights. The authors of this bill obviously have little or no experience with firearms to request such sweeping regulations, many of which will make common hunting and self-protection firearms, and magazines illegal.
As a constituent, a veteran, a Master Hunter for the state of WA, WA Hunter Education instructor, and as a law abiding citizen of your district who wishes to continue to hunt and protect himself and his family, I strongly urge you to oppose this overreaching legislation.
Like many of the pieces of legislation which have popped up since the terrible massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, this bill does nothing to protect our public, but indeed, leaves many without the protections guaranteed to us under our US Constitution and section 24 of the WA State Constitution. For your fellow senators to try and exploit this tragedy by forwarding their own agenda through this and other bills is reprehensible and underhanded. I hope you'll share my sentiments with them personally.
Thank you for your continued support of my individual rights, Don. You can depend on my support as long as you're my senator.
Most Sincerely,
John W.
Vancouver"
Post by: thatkidwho on February 13, 2013, 12:18:07 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 01:02:19 PM
Spread the word on this guys. This is a big one
Post by: xd2005 on February 13, 2013, 01:05:20 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on February 13, 2013, 01:34:52 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 01:35:41 PM
Post by: xd2005 on February 13, 2013, 01:37:33 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on February 13, 2013, 01:38:04 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 01:46:03 PM
Pianoman - are you a member at Clark?
Clark Rifles? No.
Post by: xd2005 on February 13, 2013, 01:54:36 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 02:03:17 PM
Post by: WSU on February 13, 2013, 02:16:03 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 02:16:49 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 13, 2013, 02:17:46 PM
Post by: Special T on February 13, 2013, 02:28:50 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 02:41:27 PM
It appear that the bill makes it illegal to sell, but not posess... kinda like a lot of things in this state...
Thats correct
Post by: Special T on February 13, 2013, 02:49:24 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on February 13, 2013, 03:05:52 PM
Post by: WSU on February 13, 2013, 03:06:58 PM
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
20 to read as follows:
21 (1) No person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase,
22 sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon
23 conversion kit, except as authorized by subsection (3) of this section.
That certainly looks like it is intended to criminalize possession.
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2013, 03:11:53 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 03:13:33 PM
It specifically says:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
20 to read as follows:
21 (1) No person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase,
22 sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon
23 conversion kit, except as authorized by subsection (3) of this section.
That certainly looks like it is intended to criminalize possession.
Keep on reading the bill. You only read part of it
Post by: Hi-Liter on February 13, 2013, 03:13:52 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on February 13, 2013, 03:18:29 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 03:19:40 PM
(1) No person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon conversion kit, except as authorized by subsection (3) of this section. Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited under this section is a public nuisance.
(2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any of the following:(a) The possession of an unloaded assault weapon for the purpose of permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency in this state.
()Any assault weapon relinquished pursuant to this subsection shall be destroyed;
(b) The transfer of any assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or dealer to a law enforcement agency in this state for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes;
(c) The possession of an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, but only if the person legally possessing the assault weapon has complied with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this section;
(d) The possession of an assault weapon that has been permanently disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.
(4) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any person:
(a) While lawfully engaged in shooting at a duly licensed, lawfully operated shooting range;
(b) While lawfully participating in a sporting event officially sanctioned by a club or organization established in whole or in part for the purpose of sponsoring sport shooting events.
(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;
(b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container during transport.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any person in this state who, after the effective date of this section, acquires title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession, shall, within thirty days of acquiring title, do one of the following:
(a) Comply with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this section;
(b) Dispose of the assault weapon pursuant to subsection (3)(a) of this section; or
(c) Permanently disable the assault weapon so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.
(7)(a) Any person convicted of violating subsection (1) or (2) of this section is guilty of a class C felony.
(b) Any person convicted of violating subsection (5) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(8) This section does not apply to:
(a) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, or other law enforcement officers of this or another state while acting within the scope of their duties;
(b) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized services, when on duty;
(c) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to possess assault weapons; or
(d) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in assault weapons, or the representative or agent of the person who is properly licensed under federal or state laws to do so and who is acting within the usual and ordinary course of the business.
Post by: WSU on February 13, 2013, 03:22:04 PM
Post by: Special T on February 13, 2013, 03:25:16 PM
This is the worst part of the the law unlawful search...
Post by: thatkidwho on February 13, 2013, 03:27:11 PM
Post by: WSU on February 13, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
I wonder how much they are going to charge for the yearly home inspection?
They aren't inspecting my home without a warrant.
Post by: Special T on February 13, 2013, 03:28:52 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on February 13, 2013, 03:29:05 PM
a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;
This is the worst part of the the law unlawful search...
Yeah right that is in total violation of the 4th amendment. Only unless warrant to search, exigent circumstances, pursuits or permission can police enter. So how are the police going to search "I think John Doe has an assault weapon?" Where is the PC to search? This law would violate case law.
Post by: Hi-Liter on February 13, 2013, 03:31:58 PM
Post by: CP on February 13, 2013, 03:43:36 PM
I agree that it appears you can have your "assault weapon" at your house, a gun range, or going between the two, but what about possession all the other places many of us take our "assault weapons?"
Like hunting?
Post by: xd2005 on February 13, 2013, 03:44:17 PM
SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
Granted, "authority of law" is not defined, but it would seem it would be a stretch to say violating Section 24 would fall under that.
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
On second thought, we're screwed! :chuckle:
Post by: actionshooter on February 13, 2013, 03:50:41 PM
Post by: 400out on February 13, 2013, 03:52:31 PM
Post by: longstevo on February 13, 2013, 03:53:22 PM
Do we write our district reps on this one? The judiciary committee? Congressional senators?
I've been writing all of them, but sometimes the scene becomes a bit muddled to me.
Post by: thatkidwho on February 13, 2013, 03:57:33 PM
but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
That right there sounds like all cities (technically a corp.) are in violation for having police.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 03:59:13 PM
So this government make up has me a little confused.
Do we write our district reps on this one? The judiciary committee? Congressional senators?
I've been writing all of them, but sometimes the scene becomes a bit muddled to me.
Write your state senator and write the judiciary committee.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 04:01:19 PM
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
The committee should be the Senate Committee on Law & Justice. Sorry for the misinformation. Here's the mailing list:
mike.padden@leg.wa.gov; michael.carrell@leg.wa.gov; adam.kline@leg.wa.gov; j.darneille@leg.wa.gov; jeanne.kohl-welles@leg.wa.gov; kirk.pearson@leg.wa.gov; pam.roach@leg.wa.gov
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 04:17:05 PM
"Dear Judiciary Committee Members,
Bill 5737, like almost all of the gun control bills that have been proposed since Jan. 1st, seeks to exploit the deaths of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary so that two senators can forward their personal vision of a gun-free America. Our country and state allows its individual citizens to bear arms without infringement to allow us to protect ourselves and families against harm. This bill absolutely ignores our rights.
This specific bill is so broad in its wording as to include many firearms that are common for household protection and hunting. You must not let these two senators tread on our rights under Section 24 of the WA State Constitution, or the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
It also includes verbiage which would allow officers to search homes for proper storage of Modern Sporting Rifles without warrant, a violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, and Section 7 of our state Constitution. This is only the tip of the iceberg on items in this bill that completely ignore the rights of law-abiding citizens.
As a constituent, a WA Master Hunter, a WA Hunter Education instructor, a veteran, and a lawful and careful observer of our liberties, I implore you to discard this bill as unconstitutional and vastly overreaching.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments and your service to our state. I look forward to hearing from you on your intentions regarding this bill.
--
Most Sincerely,
John W"
Post by: snowpack on February 13, 2013, 11:26:05 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 12:48:14 AM
So this government make up has me a little confused.
Do we write our district reps on this one? The judiciary committee? Congressional senators?
I've been writing all of them, but sometimes the scene becomes a bit muddled to me.
Write to your reps in Olympia. The congress members in DC have no say in this
Post by: csaaphill on February 14, 2013, 12:50:53 AM
don't let em in simple but do as you will.
Seems like each proposed bill weather it's NY, California, New Jersey, Washington now and Oregon to follow soon, has more and more provisions to disarm us.
And ya read that once years ago about here in Washington you can't be part of a militia. Which kind of contradicts the 2nd and it's meaning so in retrospect couldn't that be argued against?
Personally don't care get friends to back you when they come and be armed and ready. No law can take a persons right to rebel away just have to be willing.
Ya go ahead and send emails now but don't rely on the pen always. :twocents:
Post by: huntrights on February 14, 2013, 07:55:18 AM
I believe the people that are watching the posts in this part of the forum are most likely committed to writing and calling their Representatives. We all need to push this outside of the forum. There are tens of thousands of hunters and gun owners that are not engaged to the degree they should be. We all know many other hunters and gun owners that are not watching for these alerts and calls to action. Please contact all of them and urge them to pay attention and take action.
The anti-gun zealots have been empowered by Obama and the tragedy in Connecticut. The only way we are going fend off these attacks on our rights and freedoms is to get ALL hunters and gun owners involved. Remember, both Republicans and Democrats are hunters and gun-owners.
I wonder if those that voted for an anti-gun President and anti-gun Representatives are having some buyer's remorse. I hope it's not too late for them to learn a lesson. Don't vote party lines, vote for people that will defend and protect our rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those who assumed Obama and his followers in Congress and in state legislatures wouldn't wage a war on our Second Amendment Rights were obviously very wrong. I hope those who voted badly will now stand with us to protect our rights and freedoms.
Post by: xd2005 on February 14, 2013, 08:21:25 AM
On the federal level, the Democrats only control two of the three, nothing will make it through there.
It's almost like the administration used the federal pushes as a smokescreen to distract people from what is taking place in the states.
Post by: X-Force on February 14, 2013, 08:58:58 AM
Actually very few rifles and shotguns we use for hunting would be affected by this.
22 rifles are exempt because it specifically says "centerfire" rifle.
This is where most guns wouldn't meet the definition:Quotethat is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition
Are you sure rimfires are exempt? the way i read it is c) 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;
with the comma to me it says any semi auto... if it read any semiautomatic center-fire rifle i would agree with you that rimfires are exempt.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 14, 2013, 09:23:01 AM
"Dear Senate Committee on Law and Justice Members,
Bill 5737, like almost all of the gun control bills that have been proposed since Jan. 1st, seeks to exploit the deaths of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary so that two senators can forward their personal vision of a gun-free America. Our country and state allows its individual citizens to bear arms without infringement to allow us to protect ourselves and families against harm. This bill absolutely ignores our rights.
This specific bill is so broad in its wording as to include many firearms that are common for household protection and hunting. You must not let these two senators tread on our rights under Section 24 of the WA State Constitution, or the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
It also includes verbiage which would allow officers to search homes for proper storage of Modern Sporting Rifles without warrant, a violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, and Section 7 of our state Constitution. This is only the tip of the iceberg on items in this bill that completely ignore the rights of law-abiding citizens.
As a constituent, a WA Master Hunter, a WA Hunter Education instructor, a veteran, and a lawful and careful observer of our liberties, I implore you to discard this bill as unconstitutional and vastly overreaching.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments and your service to our state. I look forward to hearing from you on your intentions regarding this bill.
--
Most Sincerely,
John W"
Post by: lokidog on February 14, 2013, 09:40:03 AM
So this may be a stretch, depending on how you or 'they' interpret it. But many of the common pump/semi shot guns can accept a magazine tube extension. It is detachable without tools (just unscrew with your hand), and actually functions as a magazine itself. I'm just wondering if there are any thoughts if this would be viewed as a detachable mag and render for example Rem 870's as being an 'assualt weapon'?
AND
Actually very few rifles and shotguns we use for hunting would be affected by this.
22 rifles are exempt because it specifically says "centerfire" rifle.
This is where most guns wouldn't meet the definition:Quotethat is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition
Are you sure rimfires are exempt? the way i read it is c) 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;
with the comma to me it says any semi auto... if it read any semiautomatic center-fire rifle i would agree with you that rimfires are exempt.
IT DOESN'T MATTER, THIS IS BAD FOR EVERYONE WHETHER THE ONLY GUN YOU OWN IS A 22 OR AN 870 SHOTGUN!! This is what the banners count on, people finding the little exclusion for themselves so, hey it doesn't affect me..... :bash:
I am going through my email address book and asking all, libs included, to oppose this insanity.
Post by: huntrights on February 14, 2013, 10:03:07 AM
Find your legislator:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
You can also find your Representatives and write them using the NRA-ILA write-your-reps tool:
http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
Link to SB5737 Bill Summary:
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5737&year=2013
Link to original Bill:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5737.pdf
Copy and paste email addresses of Senate Law and Justice Committee members:
mike.padden@leg.wa.gov; michael.carrell@leg.wa.gov; adam.kline@leg.wa.gov; j.darneille@leg.wa.gov; jeanne.kohl-welles@leg.wa.gov; kirk.pearson@leg.wa.gov; pam.roach@leg.wa.gov
Copy and paste subject:
Oppose SB5737 – AN ACT Relating to Banning the Sale of Assault Weapons
Copy and paste message:
Dear Senate Law and Justice Committee:
I am writing today to ask that you oppose SB5737 – AN ACT Relating to banning the sale of assault weapons. This bill demonizes cosmetic and common firearm features of some guns that have nothing to with actual “assault” weapons. The term “Assault Weapon” is propaganda perpetuated by anti-gun factions in the media, anti-gun organizations, and anti-gun Representatives. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich summed it up very well on CBS’s Face the Nation: “Any true military weapon is illegal, has been illegal since 1934. Somebody’s using an AK-47, they are using an illegal weapon because it is an automatic weapon. We do not allow people to buy automatic weapons unless they have a very strict collector’s license.” Please stop allowing this propaganda to continue and actually be considered being made into law.
It has become very obvious that there are many anti-gun Representatives and others that are taking advantage of the irrational and emotional tidal wave that resulted from the tragedy in Connecticut. None of the recently proposed gun-related legislation, including SB5737, addresses the root causes of the type of tragedy that occurred in Connecticut. This nation has cultural, metal health, gang, organized crime, and drug issues that contribute far more to outbreaks of violence. In my opinion, our Representatives should be focusing on these issues, not burdening law-abiding citizens with more unneeded regulations that serve only to satisfy anti-gun agendas.
It saddens my heart that so many of our Representatives are so willing to trash the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the oath of office they took obviously meant nothing to them.
Please put a stop to these unprecedented attacks on guns and law-abiding gun owners which do nothing to curb violence or prevent criminals from carrying out their malevolent deeds. Imposing a barrage of useless gun-control regulations and laws onto law-abiding citizens will do nothing but whittle away at our liberty, rights, and freedoms we have fought so hard to obtain and keep.
Thank you.
[Your contact information]
Post by: Hi-Liter on February 14, 2013, 10:46:11 AM
Post by: X-Force on February 14, 2013, 10:56:26 AM
So this may be a stretch, depending on how you or 'they' interpret it. But many of the common pump/semi shot guns can accept a magazine tube extension. It is detachable without tools (just unscrew with your hand), and actually functions as a magazine itself. I'm just wondering if there are any thoughts if this would be viewed as a detachable mag and render for example Rem 870's as being an 'assualt weapon'?
ANDActually very few rifles and shotguns we use for hunting would be affected by this.
22 rifles are exempt because it specifically says "centerfire" rifle.
This is where most guns wouldn't meet the definition:Quotethat is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition
Are you sure rimfires are exempt? the way i read it is c) 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;
with the comma to me it says any semi auto... if it read any semiautomatic center-fire rifle i would agree with you that rimfires are exempt.
IT DOESN'T MATTER, THIS IS BAD FOR EVERYONE WHETHER THE ONLY GUN YOU OWN IS A 22 OR AN 870 SHOTGUN!! This is what the banners count on, people finding the little exclusion for themselves so, hey it doesn't affect me..... :bash:
True!
Post by: huntrights on February 14, 2013, 11:03:38 AM
Post by: bigdave on February 14, 2013, 01:06:07 PM
Dear David,
Thank you for writing me about SB 5737, introduced yesterday. I appreciate your prompt diligence for contacting me about this bill.
The only good thing about SB 5737 is that it has no chance to become law. This bill has been referred to the Senate Law & Justice Committee on which I serve. The majority makeup of that committee and the disposition of the chair, I expect this bill will remain bottled up in committee and die quietly, same as other gun control measures that must pass this committee.
By the same token, any House bills on gun control that pass out of the House would proceed to the Senate and be heard in Law & Justice. I would expect them to be dead on arrival.
MORE ACTION>>> But I do recommend that you contact the office of Senator Mike Padden, chair of the Law and Justice Committee to echo your remarks. Chairman Padden directs which bills are heard in his committee and which do not get a hearing - thus rendering them dead. Email: mike.padden@leg.wa.gov, office phone: (360) 786-7606. Sen. Padden is probably the single most influential person in this legislature for stopping any gun control measures.
You can always count on my support to oppose any measures that would limit the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens – every single time!
Thank you for your outreach.
Pam Roach
State Senator
Post by: huntrights on February 14, 2013, 01:45:45 PM
You see! We have to jump on these things.
Post by: CP on February 14, 2013, 02:51:44 PM
Thank you for writing me about SB 5737, introduced yesterday. I appreciate your prompt diligence for contacting me about this bill.
The only good thing about SB 5737 is that it has no chance to become law. This bill has been referred to the Senate Law & Justice Committee on which I serve. The majority makeup of that committee and the disposition of the chair, I expect this bill will remain bottled up in committee and die quietly, same as other gun control measures that must pass this committee.
By the same token, any House bills on gun control that pass out of the House would proceed to the Senate and be heard in Law & Justice. I would expect them to be dead on arrival.
MORE ACTION>>> But I do recommend that you contact the office of Senator Mike Padden, chair of the Law and Justice Committee to echo your remarks. Chairman Padden directs which bills are heard in his committee and which do not get a hearing - thus rendering them dead. Email: mike.padden@leg.wa.gov, office phone: (360) 786-7606. Sen. Padden is probably the single most influential person in this legislature for stopping any gun control measures.
You can always count on my support to oppose any measures that would limit the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens – every single time!
Thank you for your outreach.
Pam Roach
State Senator
Post by: viva_che1363 on February 14, 2013, 03:39:26 PM
Post by: Worldhunter on February 15, 2013, 10:32:06 PM
Post by: BullMagnet76 on February 15, 2013, 11:26:56 PM
Post by: csaaphill on February 15, 2013, 11:32:23 PM
Thanks for sharing your concern about our Second Amendment rights. Rep. Shea is adamantly opposed to this and any other bill that would tend to undermine the Second Amendment.
That's why he co-sponsored HB 1371, The Firearms Freedom Act, as part of the Freedom Agenda (see "Freedom Agenda WA" on Facebook).
It is a major component of the Freedom Agenda. This bill, if enacted, will exempt all firearms manufactured in WA State from federal regulation and will deal with anticipated future federal regulations, as well. The Washington bill will even be more robust than the much touted Wyoming bill. The history of this bill in previous sessions has been to exempt firearms manufactured in Washington that stay in Washington.
It also in Section 5(4) nullifies any federal law adopted after January 1, 2013 that bans or attempts registration of firearms. And finally, Section 12(4) specifically prevents any restrictions placed upon law-abiding citizens in a state of emergency. Those of us who remember the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina recall the door-to-door confiscation of firearms and the sometimes disastrous results.
The bill number is House Bill 1371 and can be accessed on your personal computer here.
Rep Shea is aware that there could be a slew of gun control bills coming and he is prepared to argue against them on the floor of the House. He is depending upon the informed citizenry, however, to let the body of the Legislature know how they feel about gun control and, hopefully, be available to testify at committee hearings. It was just a few weeks ago that a Democrat legislator withdrew a gun control bill after receiving a blizzard of messages of objection from concerned citizens.
Thank you very much for your letter and please consider receiving Rep Shea's regular updates while the Legislature is in session (see below). You can also follow Rep Shea by checking in on his legislative web site at: http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/Pages/shea.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/Pages/shea.aspx) .
Post by: csaaphill on February 16, 2013, 12:31:01 AM
we need to appose this legislation untill the whole thing is thrown out.
Post by: csaaphill on February 16, 2013, 05:42:10 PM
Post by: actionshooter on February 16, 2013, 09:14:22 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on February 16, 2013, 09:56:23 PM
Post by: CP on February 18, 2013, 06:20:21 AM
(I can't get the link to work)
Thanks for your message as well as your civil tone in providing me with your reasons for opposing the bill. While reasonable people can of course disagree on legislation, and while I do still believe that some types of weapons may not be needed to protect one’s family, self, home and property, I understand why some are particularly upset about the bill as introduced. It came to my attention that there had been an error in the preparation of the bill relating to including the language permitting a sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners which is not what I understood to be in the bill. If I had known that it was, I would not have signed on as a sponsor. Of course I should have read the bill in its entirety prior to signing onto it; however, I received a briefing on it without mention of the warrantless search language.
Here is what happened:
1. The bill was drafted by Senate Committee Services staff, using an old version of a bill introduced in previous sessions. This version included language (not requested by the sponsors this session) allowing the sheriff to search a residence to ensure assault weapons were securely stored. This was in Section 2 (5) (a).
2. Once the error was discovered and shown to CLEARLY have been a drafting error, and with approval by the Secretary of the Senate, the Code Reviser was able to correct the bill. The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Rodney Tom, agreed to have the bill corrected to the sponsors’ original intent.
3. The Code Reviser corrected the bill on Friday. If you now read Section 2 (5) (a) you can see the language is no longer included.
http://wsldocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5737.pdf (http://wsldocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5737.pdf)
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Ranking Member, Senate Higher Education Committee
36th Legislative District
Washington State Senate
(360) 786-7670 (206) 281-6854
Post by: Bob33 on February 18, 2013, 06:40:53 AM
Of course. But you did not. That was your responsibility.
Since you did not fulfill a basic job requirement, I am left to wonder if this indeed was not a mistake, but intentional. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, Senator.
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2013, 07:25:30 AM
Hopefully come election time her constituents will remember this. :twocents:
Post by: CP on February 18, 2013, 07:29:36 AM
The corrected version is here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5737.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5737.pdf)
It’s still a POS –
Post by: Bob33 on February 18, 2013, 07:37:10 AM
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."
Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To#)
Post by: huntinguy on February 18, 2013, 08:14:09 AM
TO: Senator Bruce Dammeier
CC: Representative Dawn Morrell
Representative Hans Zeiger
SUBJECT: HB 1371-HB 1588-SB 5737
MESSAGE: I have just read HB 1371. I find it one of the few bills that I can support.
Washington State has so many opportunities for outdoor activates and legislation such as this would guarantee that generations of Washingtonians would be able to safely enjoy all this great state has to offer.
I have also read HB 1588. I find this bill incredibly destructive to the ownership of firearms and the actives that are legally enjoyed by many Washingtonians every day. The thought that I could not offer family and friends the opportunity for shooting, hunting and other act ivies that are to be enjoyed in Washington by the onerous restrictions placed on the individual is more than depressing.
After reading SB 5737 I am very disappointed in those legislators who penned and sponsored this bill. If one would read the description of the firearms one would find that many sporting arms that are not considered “assault weapons” would be included. A shotgun with a pistol grip stock, please look at the description of the standard Remington 870, one of the most used shotguns today (and the law expands the definition of “assault weapon” to a pump action firearm!)… It is described by the manufacture as having a “pistol grip stock” and as for the thumb hole; many a target rifle has this feature. This legislation is one of the finest examples of poorly written laws I have ever seen.
The legislation also mentions any firearm being able to accept a magazine of over 10 rounds. Any firearm that can accept a magazine can accept a magazine over 10 rounds - Again a piece of legislation that is poorly written.
There are more items within the last two bills that are poorly written, unless the true idea of the bills is to remove legal firearm ownership in Washington, to be commented on. Any person who understands firearms, hunting and self-defense would quickly see these bills will not make any person in Washington safer. They would only work to make the honest citizen less safe.
I am frustrated with legislators who enforce laws on law abiding citizens simple because they can not control those who would do us harm.
I would ask you then to support HB1371 and work to oppose HB1588 and SB 5737 and any of their variants.
Respectfully
Post by: huntinguy on February 18, 2013, 08:18:25 AM
Response from Senator Kohl-Welles:
(I can't get the link to work)
Thanks for your message as well as your civil tone in providing me with your reasons for opposing the bill. While reasonable people can of course disagree on legislation, and while I do still believe that some types of weapons may not be needed to protect one’s family, self, home and property, I understand why some are particularly upset about the bill as introduced. It came to my attention that there had been an error in the preparation of the bill relating to including the language permitting a sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners which is not what I understood to be in the bill. If I had known that it was, I would not have signed on as a sponsor. Of course I should have read the bill in its entirety prior to signing onto it; however, I received a briefing on it without mention of the warrantless search language.
Here is what happened:
1. The bill was drafted by Senate Committee Services staff, using an old version of a bill introduced in previous sessions. This version included language (not requested by the sponsors this session) allowing the sheriff to search a residence to ensure assault weapons were securely stored. This was in Section 2 (5) (a).
2. Once the error was discovered and shown to CLEARLY have been a drafting error, and with approval by the Secretary of the Senate, the Code Reviser was able to correct the bill. The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Rodney Tom, agreed to have the bill corrected to the sponsors’ original intent.
3. The Code Reviser corrected the bill on Friday. If you now read Section 2 (5) (a) you can see the language is no longer included.
http://wsldocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5737.pdf (http://wsldocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5737.pdf)
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Ranking Member, Senate Higher Education Committee
36th Legislative District
Washington State Senate
(360) 786-7670 (206) 281-6854
So, lets get this straight, she did what her party told her to do then she got caught and now she is saying that she didn't read the bill so she is not responsible for what she did....
so what she said was, "Hey, judge, I didn't read the law saying I can't rob a store, but my buddy said it was okay, I am really sorry... let me go and I won't rob "that" store again. "
I don't think that would work in court... it shouldn't work in November!
Post by: Bob33 on February 18, 2013, 08:30:35 AM
Ranking Member, Senate Higher Education Committee
Someone on an education committee who doesn't read her own bills. Interesting.
Post by: CP on February 18, 2013, 09:13:21 AM
Even after removing the unconstitutional search language this bill still goes way beyond the federal Feinstein bill in applying the “assault weapon” label and subsequent controls to many popular firearms. This would be huge step backward for WA.
Keep writing!
Post by: Jekemi on February 18, 2013, 01:22:36 PM
Post by: csaaphill on February 18, 2013, 07:21:26 PM
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns regarding SB 5737. Both the United States and Washington State constitutions provide clear and specific language outlining our right to own and bear arms. Unfortunately, recent tragic events have caused some to call for a ban and/or increased regulation on certain kinds of guns and ammunition.
I am a strong advocate of your second amendment rights, and I will oppose all efforts to erode those rights. I believe we need to look at increasing sentences for certain crimes committed in conjunction with a gun. I also believe that we need to address the mental health aspects of these crimes, so that we can better prevent those suffering from mental illness from obtaining and using guns to commit these horrible crimes.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me on this very important issue. I appreciate hearing from you.
Best regards,
Senator Mike Padden
Post by: Jekemi on February 18, 2013, 08:27:43 PM
We are the 99% of law abiding, free citizens who take our gun ownership rights with patriotic zeal and thankfulness. We are ever grateful to our Founding Fathers that wrote our marvelous Constitution and charged us with the responsibility of protecting that Constitution from the very tyranny that Senator Kohl-Wells and her co-conspirators are intent on perpetrating. Go ahead and send your brown-shirt thugs to my door, asking for my weapon and see what happens. We will not abide or comply with unconstitutional laws.
Post by: csaaphill on February 20, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
aonly in transport to and from a range. Guess anyone not belonging to a gun range would be ilegal.
Post by: lokidog on February 20, 2013, 11:20:52 PM
Hand all the way to the bottom of the cookie jar! :chuckle:
Hopefully come election time her constituents will remember this. :twocents:
Yeah, they got caught all right. They didn't "not read the entire thing." Workman's interview on 97.3 made it seem like he was the only one questioning the 4th Amendment issues, which is just goofy as many on here have been talking about it for weeks.