Post by: Greenhorn on February 19, 2013, 10:06:19 AM
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwliveplayer&eventID=2013021189 (http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwliveplayer&eventID=2013021189)
Post by: gaddy on February 19, 2013, 11:39:47 AM
Post by: Greenhorn on February 19, 2013, 11:51:05 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 19, 2013, 12:12:26 PM
Post by: X-Force on February 19, 2013, 12:13:26 PM
I just jumped on to listen during lunch... cant believe they are already done for the day.
Post by: Greenhorn on February 19, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
Post by: FisherKing on February 19, 2013, 01:14:02 PM
check it out..
it was half way on the agenda.
Post by: CP on February 19, 2013, 01:22:45 PM
What's next?
Post by: CP on February 19, 2013, 01:27:11 PM
http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/Handler.ashx?MethodName=getdocumentcontent&documentId=2AO5E7ehqUM&att=false (http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/Handler.ashx?MethodName=getdocumentcontent&documentId=2AO5E7ehqUM&att=false)
2013
PSHB 1588 (No. 2) Requiring universal background checks for firearms transfers By Rep. Pedersen Summary of PSHB 1588 (No. 2) Requirements for Firearms Sales Between Unlicensed Persons. An unlicensed person is prohibited from selling a firearm to another unlicensed person unless: The purchaser produces a valid Washington concealed pistol license (CPL); The purchaser produces a background check certificate issued by a local law enforcement agency; or The transaction is completed through a dealer.
A violation of this provision is a gross misdemeanor offense. "Unlicensed person" means a person who is not licensed as a dealer under state law, or federally licensed as a collector. The seller may retain a copy of the purchaser's CPL or background check certificate as proof of compliance with the law. The act does not apply to the sale of antique firearms, or curios or relics
as defined in federal law. The act also does not apply to, nor alter any state law requirements that apply to, the sale of a firearm by a dealer. Background Check Certificates. A person may obtain a background check certificate from the chief of police or sheriff of the
jurisdiction where the applicant resides. An application for a background check certificate must include the applicant's full name, residential address, and date and place of birth, and may include his or her social security number. The law enforcement agency must verify the applicant's identity
by examining the applicant's drivers' license or other picture identification. The chief of police or sheriff must approve the application if: (1) based on a background check conducted through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the applicant is eligible to possess a firearm under state and federal law; or (2) three business days have elapsed since initiating the background check and the NICS has not notified the chief of police or sheriff that the applicant is ineligible to possess a firearm. The chief of police or sheriff must provide the applicant with the NICS transaction number if the application is denied because the person is ineligible to possess a firearm. A background check certificate issued under this section is valid for 10 days from the date the
application is approved by the chief of police or sheriff. The chief of police or sheriff may charge a fee of up to twenty dollars for issuing background check certificates. The chief of police or sheriff shall retain a copy of each certificate issued, but records of certificates are confidential and not subject to public disclosure except to law enforcement agencies for criminal justice purposes.
Post by: gaddy on February 19, 2013, 01:46:40 PM
Post by: Greenhorn on February 19, 2013, 02:42:32 PM
Post by: xd2005 on February 19, 2013, 02:48:02 PM
Post by: thatkidwho on February 19, 2013, 03:17:28 PM
Post by: xd2005 on February 19, 2013, 03:28:15 PM
The bill specifies selling, not giving. So I assume that I may gift my son his rifles at 18 without a background check.
At initial blush, that appears correct.
The current section is amended to read:
(1) No person may deliver a firearm to any person whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is ineligible under state or federal law to possess a firearm. Any person violating this subsection is guilty of a class C felony, punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
Then it gets into the new sections which all indicate "sell."
Post by: gaddy on February 19, 2013, 03:44:42 PM
Post by: xd2005 on February 19, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
I went here, clicked on 1588, then on Amd/Proposed Subs where there were two listed, one said Adopted and one said Withdrawn.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/main.htm?aid=18776#agenda_page (http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/main.htm?aid=18776#agenda_page)
I haven't seen information on whether actual bill passed out of committee (but sounds like it has?).
Post by: gaddy on February 19, 2013, 03:52:53 PM
Post by: Windwalker on February 19, 2013, 05:19:56 PM
DAMIT :bash: Ok- sigh.
HB1588 –do pass recommendation
7 eye
6 nay
However- something is askew- Proposed sub No.1 reads 'adopted' (has for some time)
However they advised -listening to dialog - "there is a new Proposed sub No.2 ( interrupted) please brief that, I have withdrawn No.1" -
so, where is the substantiating documentation...?
This is not over yet........
Post by: xd2005 on February 19, 2013, 05:41:56 PM
DAMIT :bash: Ok- sigh.
HB1588 –do pass recommendation
7 eye
6 nay
However- something is askew- Proposed sub No.1 reads 'adopted' (has for some time)
However they advised -listening to dialog - "there is a new Proposed sub No.2 ( interrupted) please brief that, I have withdrawn No.1" -
so, where is the substantiating documentation...?
This is not over yet........
Are you talking about today's vote? I just relistened to the entire thing from 12:00 to 18:00 and did not hear the dialog you are referring to. Do you have a time for that dialog?
Post by: scotty1969 on February 19, 2013, 06:06:23 PM
Post by: xd2005 on February 19, 2013, 06:28:20 PM
i just looked at the rcw for this and it says it recieved enough votes to go to gov. desk did i miss something?is it now law or is it still open?
Where are you looking?
No, it has not gone to Gov desk. Still needs to pass all of House and the Senate.
Post by: scotty1969 on February 19, 2013, 06:51:03 PM
Post by: Windwalker on February 19, 2013, 07:58:28 PM
This is what it is all about- getting involved, informed, and let your representatives know how YOU want them to vote- some legislators may have preconceived notions how they personally wish things pan out but- this is about them representing US.
Review from 00:00:20 to around 00:01:00
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013021189#start=750&stop=196 (http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013021189#start=750&stop=196)
You will have to back it up from this clip.
several things - First off , where is PSHB 1588 (No.2) ?
http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/main.htm?aid=18681#items_page (http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/main.htm?aid=18681#items_page)
1588 - Firearms/Background checks
(H-1417.1)
Amd/Proposed Subs
01 - PSHB 1588 (No.1) with Effect Adopted
02 - PSHB 1588 (No.2) with Effect Withdrawn
Yet I heard -listening to dialog - "there is a new Proposed sub No.2 ( interrupted) please brief that, I have withdrawn No.1".
So...now what..the hell are they doing..?
Second-
I heard the lady read something different than, what is written on (H-1417.1) HB1588.
'The dealer or chief of police or sheriff conducting the background check may not retain a copy of the firearms transaction record (ATF form 4473), which shall be returned to the seller after the completion of the background check.'
Listen around 00:02:00 to the 3 minute mark- they go into how much they can charge etc. but just after that said they are required to keep the records..just for law enforcement not public disclosure etc...there is a disconnect between the written proposed law and what has been presented. Sounds like she is reading from a different script than what we were allowed to comment on.
This isn't addressing the multitude of other issues I have with the bill..
Here we go- posted before but to keep you up to date- I don't want to foster false hope but- NEVER give up till it is over- and it isn't over yet.
How a Bill Becomes a Law
1. A bill may be introduced in either the Senate or House of Representatives by a member.
2. It is referred to a committee for a hearing. The committee studies the bill and may hold public hearings on it. It can then pass, reject, or take no action on the bill.
3. The committee report on the passed bill is read in open session of the House or Senate, and the bill is then referred to the Rules Committee.
4. The Rules Committee can either place the bill on the second reading calendar for debate before the entire body, or take no action.
5. At the second reading, a bill is subject to debate and amendment before being placed on the third reading calendar for final passage.
6. After passing one house, the bill goes through the same procedure in the other house.
7. If amendments are made in the other house, the first house must approve the changes.
8. When the bill is accepted in both houses, it is signed by the respective leaders and sent to the governor.
9. The governor signs the bill into law or may veto all or part of it. If the governor fails to act on the bill, it may become law without a signature.
And here is the longer version of how they whittle away time - read and heed.
Overview of the Legislative Process
http://www.leg.wa.gov/LIC/Documents/EducationAndInformation/Overview_of_Legislative_Process.pdf (http://www.leg.wa.gov/LIC/Documents/EducationAndInformation/Overview_of_Legislative_Process.pdf)
Post by: csaaphill on February 19, 2013, 08:25:51 PM
whos got a good easy master list of who those are?
Post by: xd2005 on February 19, 2013, 08:45:05 PM
Post by: Windwalker on February 19, 2013, 09:20:14 PM
But wait it gets better- pardon me while I vent..
https://fortress.wa.gov/ofm/fnspublic/legsearch.asp?BillNumber=1588&SessionNumber=63
Indeterminate impact to the Department of Licensing. The impact on staff workload cannot be determined because:
• Under RCW 9.41.010, firearms include all weapons and it is unknown as to how many private sales or transfers between unlicensed persons occur in the State of Washington. Currently, the department receives only “pistol” transfer information, not long guns or other weapons.
• The department assumes that the intent of the bill is to retain the sale or transfer information. The department is unable to project the number of sale or transfer applications that will be received and need to be recorded in DOL’s firearms database. This will result in an increase in workload that will require additional FTEs to process the information. The department estimates that one Office Assistant 3, working only on pistol transfers, can process 36,000 documents a year (150 per day at 240 days/year).
So how many applications do you think they will need to process - translating to more staff at what cost and again- why are they keeping this info..to prove they did a background check? Well if they did one I thought assumptions were the transaction is clear. The data base smacks of a nefarious legitimacy.
Besides the fact that if -for whatever reason- a firearm sold is used in a crime- the private seller is on the hook until he provides and establishes a date/time record of the transaction -
And no terms to exclude giving all of your best friends birthday presents- or passing your firearms to your family...long as it is a gift.
So the bill accomplishes what- causing grief and burdening those who follow the law.
If given the opportunity one could prove the spirit of this bill has been covered 12 ways to Sunday by other legislation. It is not ok to provide/sell a felon a modern firearm nor is it ok for him to obtain one. Nor a mental deviant. But then it is still against the law to commit a crime also...isn't it.
Ok- I feel a little better- this crap is exasperating
Post by: Greenhorn on February 20, 2013, 08:42:06 AM
Post by: xd2005 on February 20, 2013, 11:15:22 AM
Quote
The first substitute (which is what we heard testimony on at the public hearing) is the version that had the votes to pass out of committee, so that is what we passed.
No mention of why 1 was withdrawn (but still passed) or 2 was read.
Post by: Greenhorn on February 20, 2013, 11:55:38 AM
Post by: xd2005 on February 20, 2013, 11:57:20 AM
Post by: csaaphill on February 20, 2013, 10:08:11 PM
I appreciate you taking the time to write about your concerns regarding gun rights in this state and House Bill 1588, which would require universal background checks. Following the tragic events at Newtown, Connecticut and the long list of killings prior to that, I strongly believe we must do more in this country to protect our children and society as a whole. We cannot continue postponing this issue, and I hope to see substantial reforms during this legislative session.
I have received many e-mails and phone calls from constituents on both sides of House Bill 1588, and I greatly appreciate hearing your opinion. But after much consideration, I have come to the conclusion that we should require background checks for anyone purchasing a gun and eliminate the gun show loophole, because it will help our state become an even safer place to live.
Thank you again for your e-mail. I hope you will continue to let me know your concerns, so that I can better represent you.
Thank you for contacting me. I voted against the bill in committee and will do the same if it comes up for a vote in the floor