Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2014, 03:06:23 PM
"Closed season" means the period between April 15th and October 15th, unless the department (DNR) designates different dates because of prevailing fire weather conditions.
"Exploding target" means a device:
(a) Designed for use or used as a target for ammunition or other projectiles;
(b) Consisting of a flammable substance or combination of substances; and
(c) Capable of exploding when struck by ammunition or other projectiles.
"Incendiary ammunition" means ammunition that is designed to ignite or explode upon impact with or penetration of a target or designed to trace its course in the air with a trail of smoke, chemical incandescence, or fire.
"Sky lantern" means an unmanned self-contained luminary device that uses heated air produced by an open flame or produced by another source to become or remain airborne.
Senate Bill 6199 sponsored by Senators Braun (D) and Hargrove (D), and House Bill 2427 sponsored by Reps Blake (D), Orcutt (R), Hurst (D), MacEwen (R), Kretz (R), Haigh (D), Ryu (D), and Buys (R) would make the detonation of an exploding target or release of a sky lantern illegal during the "closed season" on forest, brush, range, or grain areas illegal.
Outside of the "closed season" the bill would make it illegal to detonate an exploding target, release a sky lantern or fire incendiary ammunition on or over those lands where the person:
(a) Does not own or have lawful possession and control of the land in question; and
(b) Did not receive prior written permission for the activity from a person who owns or has lawful possession and control of the land in question.
A violation of these laws would be a misdemeanor.
Post by: jackmaster on January 17, 2014, 03:12:31 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on January 17, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2014, 03:34:26 PM
I understand that they are trying to focus on safety and maybe preventing some fires but we have much bigger fish to fry right now. Lets focus on the bigger tasks at hand and IF we ever get those squared away, which we won't, then we can move to things like these.
I completely understand where you are coming from. But there are over a thousand bills introduced every year in WA. This to me is more important then a bill which is simply fixing grammar. There is a reason why this legislature is in session for 60 days, it's so legislators can work on a multitude of issues :twocents:
Post by: vandeman17 on January 17, 2014, 03:37:19 PM
I understand that they are trying to focus on safety and maybe preventing some fires but we have much bigger fish to fry right now. Lets focus on the bigger tasks at hand and IF we ever get those squared away, which we won't, then we can move to things like these.
I completely understand where you are coming from. But there are over a thousand bills introduced every year in WA. This to me is more important then a bill which is simply fixing grammar. There is a reason why this legislature is in session for 60 days, it's so legislators can work on a multitude of issues :twocents:
I agree it is more important then some bills but instead of having thousands of petty bills, lets have half that many ones that are relevant to the overall health and prosperity then we can shift gears later.
Post by: blackdog on January 17, 2014, 03:51:28 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 10:27:56 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 19, 2014, 09:49:05 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 10:02:57 AM
Aren't illegal fireworks the cause of more damage to private property fires than the items listed here?
I think the reasoning is that there has been a surge in fires caused as a result of exploding targets the past few years.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 19, 2014, 10:11:11 AM
Can you list a couple of existing RCWs that we could use to cite someone who negligently causes a fire?
Instead, with new "feel good" legislation, we are going to create new ways to target anything to do with firearms.
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 10:16:29 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 19, 2014, 10:18:28 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 10:20:30 AM
I have basically lost faith in our legislators to do the right thing. If fires are the issue, then lets prosecute those that start them. I am sure that you could prosecute some moron causing a fire by incindiary device.I think the idea of this bill is to prevent fires, not to be able to charge someone who caused a fire. The below RCWs are ones that would be applicable to fires, the RCW 76 one is specific to wildfires. The problem the opposition will face is there are some powerful and pro-gun legislators in on this bill so if you try to say it's just another anti-gun bill they will just ignore it.
Can you list a couple of existing RCWs that we could use to cite someone who negligently causes a fire?
Instead, with new "feel good" legislation, we are going to create new ways to target anything to do with firearms.
RCW 76.04.740
(1) It is unlawful to knowingly cause a fire or explosion and thereby place forest lands in danger of destruction or damage.
(2) This section does not apply to acts amounting to reckless burning in the first degree under RCW 9A.48.040.
(3) Terms used in this section shall have the meanings given to them in Title 9A RCW.
(4) A violation of this section shall be punished as a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9A.20.021.
RCW 9A.48.040
(1) A person is guilty of reckless burning in the first degree if he or she recklessly damages a building or other structure or any vehicle, railway car, aircraft, or watercraft or any hay, grain, crop, or timber whether cut or standing, by knowingly causing a fire or explosion.
(2) Reckless burning in the first degree is a class C felony.
RCW 9A.48.050
(1) A person is guilty of reckless burning in the second degree if he or she knowingly causes a fire or explosion, whether on his or her own property or that of another, and thereby recklessly places a building or other structure, or any vehicle, railway car, aircraft, or watercraft, or any hay, grain, crop or timber, whether cut or standing, in danger of destruction or damage.
(2) Reckless burning in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 10:21:49 AM
They had a fire on THEIR land and are asking for simple change in law that may prevent a future fire.Prevention is the reasoning for this bill. It's not so much being able to go after someone who caused a fire, but rather lets prevent the fires from even happening. :twocents:
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 19, 2014, 10:26:24 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 19, 2014, 10:30:26 AM
A few fires caused by an exploding target should not equate to new legislation in my opinion. This new law will in no way preclude more fires from the same cause.
I would rather study the issue a bit better, learn how the fires are actually being started. Then using the metrics, go after these fire starters. Maybe more education in these areas, not spending all this time to affect only a few.
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 11:04:16 AM
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 11:08:31 AM
Post by: PolarBear on January 19, 2014, 11:10:30 AM
Post by: netcoyote on January 19, 2014, 11:14:21 AM
Once again the lawmakers are blindly focusing on the "thing", i.e. explosive targets, rather than the deed done by a stupid human. The act of causing the fire is the crime and the person setting it should be the one held responsible.
Personally, I have no interest in tannerite or any of these incendiary targets and generally think they are a bad idea. I think that is a different discussion than proposing yet another law that is going to be difficult to enforce and further reinforce the notion that "things" cause crime rather than bad people.
Post by: PolarBear on January 19, 2014, 11:32:51 AM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 19, 2014, 11:28:46 PM
I'm saying the landowner wants some control on his property over the use of these products.
The land owner already has that control. As far as I know the land owner can place whatever restrictions on their land they want. They can completely restrict access for that matter.
I keep an eye on inciweb and other such sites and so far have not seen fire that would have been prevented by this bill. If you look a DNR you will see that during fire season you are restricted from doing just about anything on state land that could even remotely cause a fire, I am sure there are already prohibitions in place without the need for more.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 01:41:09 AM
Post by: Greenhorn on January 20, 2014, 08:56:04 AM
Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 10:41:12 AM
Maybe there is something I am missing, I think the legislators have good intentions, but I am really tired of seeing so many new laws passed. :dunno:
The Road to Hell is paved with GOOD intentions. :twocents:
Post by: lokidog on January 21, 2014, 09:51:23 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2014, 12:28:39 PM
Maybe there is something I am missing, I think the legislators have good intentions, but I am really tired of seeing so many new laws passed. :dunno:
The Road to Hell is paved with GOOD intentions. :twocents:
I had a conversation with Representative Blake and this was a topic we discussed. The primary purpose seems to be to protect private land owners from fire dangers. This may help encourage private landowners to keep their lands open to public use. With that in mind I'm in favor of this bill and have changed my vote to yes.
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2014, 03:31:49 PM
The house bill had a hearing today.
Post by: bigtex on January 29, 2014, 01:56:14 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 29, 2014, 02:04:39 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 10:22:37 AM
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2014, 09:30:52 PM
It now goes to Inslee for signing.
Post by: stuckalot on March 05, 2014, 09:59:04 PM
If I'm reading it correctly, that's kind of a "well, duh" scenario. ???
Post by: Bob33 on March 05, 2014, 10:01:43 PM
For the record it is not clear that tannerite if used properly is even included in this definition. If used properly the company says its not flammable.
(18) "Exploding target" means a device:
(a) Designed for use or used as a target for ammunition or other projectiles;
(b) Consisting of a flammable substance or combination of substances; and
(c) Capable of exploding when struck by ammunition or other projectiles.
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2014, 10:05:13 PM
Am I reading it correctly that you can still use exploding targets on public land from November-May just not during closed season. And you cannot at any time use them on private property without the owner's permission? With landowner permission during non-closed season you are good to blow stuff?You are reading it wrong.
If I'm reading it correctly, that's kind of a "well, duh" scenario. ???
Exploding targets year round ban on public land.
Outside of the "closed season" you could use them on private land, but only with permission.
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2014, 10:10:19 PM
For the record it is not clear that tannerite if used properly is even included in this definition. If used properly the company says its not flammable.
(18) "Exploding target" means a device:
(a) Designed for use or used as a target for ammunition or other projectiles;
(b) Consisting of a flammable substance or combination of substances; and
(c) Capable of exploding when struck by ammunition or other projectiles.
Doesn't it have to meet a, b, and c in order to be considered an exploding target? (Not just a and c but all three)?
Post by: Bob33 on March 05, 2014, 10:12:38 PM
If tannerite is legal, this bill has a huge loophole.For the record it is not clear that tannerite if used properly is even included in this definition. If used properly the company says its not flammable.
(18) "Exploding target" means a device:
(a) Designed for use or used as a target for ammunition or other projectiles;
(b) Consisting of a flammable substance or combination of substances; and
(c) Capable of exploding when struck by ammunition or other projectiles.
Doesn't it have to meet a, b, and c in order to be considered an exploding target? (Not just a and c but all three)?
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2014, 10:25:20 PM
If tannerite is legal, this bill has a huge loophole.For the record it is not clear that tannerite if used properly is even included in this definition. If used properly the company says its not flammable.
(18) "Exploding target" means a device:
(a) Designed for use or used as a target for ammunition or other projectiles;
(b) Consisting of a flammable substance or combination of substances; and
(c) Capable of exploding when struck by ammunition or other projectiles.
Doesn't it have to meet a, b, and c in order to be considered an exploding target? (Not just a and c but all three)?
Well honestly I don't even know what tannerite is. Does it consist of a "combination of substances?" If so then I guess it meets (b).
Post by: Bob33 on March 05, 2014, 10:38:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite)
Post by: HighlandLofts on March 05, 2014, 10:42:59 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on March 06, 2014, 12:12:02 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Amendments/House/6199-S%20AMH%20AGNR%20H4402.1.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Amendments/House/6199-S%20AMH%20AGNR%20H4402.1.pdf)
The apparent final definition:
Quote
(18) "Exploding target" means a device that is designed or marketed to ignite or explode when struck by firearm ammunition or other projectiles;
It seems like a lazy attempt at a definition. But yeah legislators! You did something!
So propane bottles, gas cans, flammable gases or powders in balloons or other containers in proximity to an open flame may still be dandy because they are not necessarily "designed or marketed to ignite or explode when struck by firearm ammunition or other projectiles." But beware shooting full soda cans under a common definition of "detonate" and "explode."
If they wanted to call out tannerite in particular (by brand or chemical composition), or the particular danger supposedly addressed by this bill, they could have screwed it up a little less.
I hope they don't strain a muscle patting themselves on the back for this one.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on March 06, 2014, 12:30:25 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on March 06, 2014, 12:37:55 AM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on March 13, 2014, 09:11:43 PM
I understand that they are trying to focus on safety and maybe preventing some fires but we have much bigger fish to fry right now. Lets focus on the bigger tasks at hand and IF we ever get those squared away, which we won't, then we can move to things like these.
I completely understand where you are coming from. But there are over a thousand bills introduced every year in WA. This to me is more important then a bill which is simply fixing grammar. There is a reason why this legislature is in session for 60 days, it's so legislators can work on a multitude of issues :twocents:
You mean like wasting the time to vote on what the official State Oyster should be when there are important things to consider? :chuckle:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 13, 2014, 09:27:59 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 13, 2014, 09:33:35 PM
DEMOCRAPS doing their best again.............idiots !Can't say that on this one. Not only did it get a unanimous YES vote, it also had several Republican sponsors
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 13, 2014, 09:41:10 PM
DEMOCRAPS doing their best again.............idiots !Can't say that on this one. Not only did it get a unanimous YES vote, it also had several Republican sponsors
The republicans are now working for the democraps. They worthless too.
Post by: barracuda163 on March 14, 2014, 07:27:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 14, 2014, 07:40:14 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: SCRUBS on March 14, 2014, 07:51:01 PM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on March 14, 2014, 08:04:44 PM
Just goes to show the ignorance of our legislators.
Post by: 300UltraMagShooter on March 14, 2014, 08:10:27 PM
Maybe there is something I am missing, I think the legislators have good intentions, but I am really tired of seeing so many new laws passed. :dunno:
The Road to Hell is paved with GOOD intentions. :twocents:
I had a conversation with Representative Blake and this was a topic we discussed. The primary purpose seems to be to protect private land owners from fire dangers. This may help encourage private landowners to keep their lands open to public use. With that in mind I'm in favor of this bill and have changed my vote to yes.
This is the first time I've every read a post from you where you sold your vote and threw principal out the window.
IMHO they need to stop making laws that are none of their business. Even throwing principal out the window, I don't see how it protect anyone. Why not just let private land owners decide if they want them on their land? Am I missing something?
Enough with dumb laws. How about these guys go through the books and voiding all the dumb laws. Much better use of their time.
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2014, 08:31:18 PM
DEMOCRAPS doing their best again.............idiots !Can't say that on this one. Not only did it get a unanimous YES vote, it also had several Republican sponsors
I talked with a legislator about this bill, I found out it was introduced to try and keep more private lands open for public access in western Washington, that's why legislators on both sides of the isle supported it. Just passing on what I was told, not saying it's necessarily right, but I have to admit, it's hard to disagree with the reasoning. :dunno:
Post by: barracuda163 on March 15, 2014, 02:45:40 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 29, 2014, 04:31:46 PM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on April 29, 2014, 08:06:46 PM
Post by: timberfaller on April 30, 2014, 10:59:00 AM
Any bets the DNR won't fight the EPA?? Any bets Jay Inslee doesn't know what a CAT is :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2014, 10:10:58 PM
I read the bill at the beginning but was not clear on what lands are covered and did not want to read back through three pages. Does this pertain to DNR only or is federal land covered as well?
Statewide, no matter who owns the land. As far as I know there was already a federal provision banning the use of the targets on USFS lands...