Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 11:13:39 AM
The second bill he's put his name on is the DNA bill, HB 2669, which would allow the state to collect DNA samples from anyone arrested for any crime. This is an incredible intrusion into our medical privacy at a time when medical privacy has never been more important.
It seems to me that Mr. Haler is a Republican in name only. If someone in Congressional district 8 can contact him and have more luck than I with getting answers out of him, it would be appreciated. Until that time, however, I can do little but go by his actions (the two bills), and his inaction (not calling me back). This doesn't seem like the kind of person we need in the legislature.
**Updated** See my Reply #22 after his call to me this afternoon - Good news.
Post by: grundy53 on January 27, 2014, 11:33:57 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 11:35:18 AM
I'm a moderator for a hunting and fishing forum which has 16,000 members in WA, many from your district. I'm also a director of a conservation non-profit which has over 600 members. Our membership is overwhelmingly concerned about your sponsorship of HB 2342, which would limit access to public waterways across small tracts of land where parking couldn't be provided. I've contacted your office twice and have received no response regarding this bill.
In addition, you've now added your name to HB 2669, which would authorize DNA sampling for people arrested for any crime, creating a DNA database. At a time when our medical privacy is under constant attack from the federal government with regards to the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, this would seem to be a complete trampling of our rights under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution and provide a list to the government whenever they decide to come and get it. We have no problem with convicted felons having to provide DNA, but the language in this bill seems to promote unlimited powers for the state in collection.
The GOP, is supposed to be a party of smaller government and liberty. Please confirm for us that you're a true Republican and get as far away from these bills as you can. We're watching you and waiting for your response. Many of our members live and are active in your district. Thank you for your attention to my comments.
--
PMan
Post by: grundy53 on January 27, 2014, 11:39:53 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: washelkhunter on January 27, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 27, 2014, 11:43:12 AM
I agree RINO.
sent from my typewriter
Sure looks that way......
Post by: whacker1 on January 27, 2014, 11:48:04 AM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on January 27, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on January 27, 2014, 11:50:09 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 11:50:16 AM
tag - look forward to seeing what sort of response you receive.
I don't think I'll receive one because I'm not in his district. That's why I hope someone in District 8 will step up to the plate and reach out to him so we can get his slant. This is Richland. Thanks guys,
PMan
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 11:53:13 AM
Where is Rep. Haler from? I'll bet it's someplace on the I-5 corridor.... :bash:
Surprisingly not. Richland is Near Kennewick.
Post by: whacker1 on January 27, 2014, 11:53:13 AM
tag - look forward to seeing what sort of response you receive.
I don't think I'll receive one because I'm not in his district. That's why I hope someone in District 8 will step up to the plate and reach out to him so we can get his slant. This is Richland. Thanks guys,
PMan
I usually find that I don't get a response from the rep. for at least a week unless i know him or her on a first name basis. Then the longer ones won't respond unless the bill dies or the session ends. Anywhere in between those time frames. There are a few that won't respond at all.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 27, 2014, 11:57:00 AM
Where is Rep. Haler from? I'll bet it's someplace on the I-5 corridor.... :bash:I believe Somewhere someone posted Tri Cities area :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 11:59:59 AM
tag - look forward to seeing what sort of response you receive.
I don't think I'll receive one because I'm not in his district. That's why I hope someone in District 8 will step up to the plate and reach out to him so we can get his slant. This is Richland. Thanks guys,
PMan
I usually find that I don't get a response from the rep. for at least a week unless i know him or her on a first name basis. Then the longer ones won't respond unless the bill dies or the session ends. Anywhere in between those time frames. There are a few that won't respond at all.
My representatives always respond to me, even the ones for whom I didn't vote. If yours don't respond to you, you should be banging down their doors.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on January 27, 2014, 12:09:30 PM
Post by: whacker1 on January 27, 2014, 12:12:54 PM
tag - look forward to seeing what sort of response you receive.
I don't think I'll receive one because I'm not in his district. That's why I hope someone in District 8 will step up to the plate and reach out to him so we can get his slant. This is Richland. Thanks guys,
PMan
I usually find that I don't get a response from the rep. for at least a week unless i know him or her on a first name basis. Then the longer ones won't respond unless the bill dies or the session ends. Anywhere in between those time frames. There are a few that won't respond at all.
My representatives always respond to me, even the ones for whom I didn't vote. If yours don't respond to you, you should be banging down their doors.
Mine always respond. I was referencing when I contact those from outside my district.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 12:23:53 PM
A woman I know got a response from Nancy Pelosi when she wrote to thank her for supporting something she believed in. Nancy Pelosi replied: "I can't answer you because you are not one of my constituents." :bash:
I got the same response from Nancy when I wrote about something she was trying to take away from us. I can understand on the federal level. I would imagine a bag like here gets millions of emails. Haler, not so many, really.
Post by: buckfvr on January 27, 2014, 01:00:15 PM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on January 27, 2014, 01:01:24 PM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on January 27, 2014, 01:05:31 PM
I dont support this idea either, but my wife says its no more invasive than finger prints and mug shots........give me a better argument to pass on. :dunno:
Keep on letting this crap slip through. Pretty soon you'll be like the guy I used to hunt with who was complaining that he couldn't even buy a pack of pellets for his pellet gun because he didn't have a Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card!
Post by: buckfvr on January 27, 2014, 01:20:51 PM
I dont support this idea either, but my wife says its no more invasive than finger prints and mug shots........give me a better argument to pass on. :dunno:
Keep on letting this crap slip through. Pretty soon you'll be like the guy I used to hunt with who was complaining that he couldn't even buy a pack of pellets for his pellet gun because he didn't have a Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card!
I know its another significant chink in the armor for something like this to go through, but for those who dont share our passions, what is the compelling argument. ?
Unfortunately, you'll be like the guy you used to hunt with also, as you live here too. The over 90% of folks who dont share similarities of our lifestyles will decide the who and what of it any way...........always have.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 01:34:55 PM
I dont support this idea either, but my wife says its no more invasive than finger prints and mug shots........give me a better argument to pass on. :dunno:
Keep on letting this crap slip through. Pretty soon you'll be like the guy I used to hunt with who was complaining that he couldn't even buy a pack of pellets for his pellet gun because he didn't have a Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card!
Finger prints and mugshots can't be used down the road to classify your health situation because you have a certain genetic makeup.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 03:40:01 PM
We also talked about 2469, the DNA testing for people arrested for crimes. This bill was sponsored by a "seat-mate" (another legislator who works closely with him on bills on which they agree), Rep. Brad Klippert. I told him we're concerned about DNA being collected from those arrested for any crime, as opposed to those convicted of felonies. I talked to him about our concerns that such information would be used with regards to our public health system, not just the criminal justice system, and he understood and agreed with those concerns. He told me he would go to Mr. Klippert and request the bill be amended to read "convicted of", instead of arrested. He also assured me that his office would notify me in advance if these bills went up for a vote as written.
We also talked briefly about the gun control/registration bills up and he'll be voting against those, as well as supporting gun rights legislation.
My overall impression was very favorable, once we finally talked. He's very busy with the open session going on and was giving of his time to one who's not a constituent. I felt a lot better having spoken with him this afternoon. Thank you Rep. Haler for taking your time with me on the phone!
Post by: buckfvr on January 27, 2014, 04:12:20 PM
I dont support this idea either, but my wife says its no more invasive than finger prints and mug shots........give me a better argument to pass on. :dunno:
Keep on letting this crap slip through. Pretty soon you'll be like the guy I used to hunt with who was complaining that he couldn't even buy a pack of pellets for his pellet gun because he didn't have a Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card!
Finger prints and mugshots can't be used down the road to classify your health situation because you have a certain genetic makeup.
So in regards to health care, this would be like dna profiling..........really.........
I cant abide by a politician writing laws for every family with kids who are constituents......many of us have to deal with dirt bags and either do now or have had to protect our families from dirt bags. I dont feel as though this part of being a diligent parent should be replaced by seeking special priviledges from legislators.
I am strongly for way less government at every level, and fewer more meaningful laws.
Post by: magnanimous_j on January 27, 2014, 04:27:49 PM
I just got a call from Rep Haler and we discussed both bills. The first, 2342, which would've limited or prohibited access to public waterways across smaller parcels of land was indeed aimed at helping select constituents. However, it was because there has been a problem with two families with children, and people coming onto their land and approaching the children with possible criminal intent. After exhausting his efforts with the county commissioners, his next recourse was with a House bill. This bill will be amended so that either the specific property is the only place addressed, or so that other areas are not closed off to fishing/access. If it even comes up to discussion, which at this point is up in the air, he's going to request it be tabled until proper wording can be added to protect public access.
We also talked about 2469, the DNA testing for people arrested for crimes. This bill was sponsored by a "seat-mate" (another legislator who works closely with him on bills on which they agree), Rep. Brad Klippert. I told him we're concerned about DNA being collected from those arrested for any crime, as opposed to those convicted of felonies. I talked to him about our concerns that such information would be used with regards to our public health system, not just the criminal justice system, and he understood and agreed with those concerns. He told me he would go to Mr. Klippert and request the bill be amended to read "convicted of", instead of arrested. He also assured me that his office would notify me in advance if these bills went up for a vote as written.
So in both cases, the bills are irresponsibly written and overreaching. And in both cases, the bills would be amended later to reflect their true intent, and the second one just because you, a guy who isn't even in his district, today mentioned that the second bill was basically the plot to F'ing Gattaca. This guy is a little too casual for my taste.
I've written a bill that outlaws dogs
What?
Don't worry about it, I'm going to change it later to outlaw pet bears. That's what I really meant.
Well change it now!
Meh. I'll get to it.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on January 27, 2014, 04:30:56 PM
Post by: whacker1 on January 27, 2014, 05:00:03 PM
I just got a call from Rep Haler and we discussed both bills. The first, 2342, which would've limited or prohibited access to public waterways across smaller parcels of land was indeed aimed at helping select constituents. However, it was because there has been a problem with two families with children, and people coming onto their land and approaching the children with possible criminal intent. After exhausting his efforts with the county commissioners, his next recourse was with a House bill. This bill will be amended so that either the specific property is the only place addressed, or so that other areas are not closed off to fishing/access. If it even comes up to discussion, which at this point is up in the air, he's going to request it be tabled until proper wording can be added to protect public access.
We also talked about 2469, the DNA testing for people arrested for crimes. This bill was sponsored by a "seat-mate" (another legislator who works closely with him on bills on which they agree), Rep. Brad Klippert. I told him we're concerned about DNA being collected from those arrested for any crime, as opposed to those convicted of felonies. I talked to him about our concerns that such information would be used with regards to our public health system, not just the criminal justice system, and he understood and agreed with those concerns. He told me he would go to Mr. Klippert and request the bill be amended to read "convicted of", instead of arrested. He also assured me that his office would notify me in advance if these bills went up for a vote as written.
So in both cases, the bills are irresponsibly written and overreaching. And in both cases, the bills would be amended later to reflect their true intent, and the second one just because you, a guy who isn't even in his district, today mentioned that the second bill was basically the plot to F'ing Gattaca. This guy is a little too casual for my taste.
I've written a bill that outlaws dogs
What?
Don't worry about it, I'm going to change it later to outlaw pet bears. That's what I really meant.
Well change it now!
Meh. I'll get to it.
Really Mag: Do you not understand the political process?
Here is how it works:
Haler has heard from many people on both bills. This is how bad bills either get killed or become good bills. All bills are written from predominantly one perspective. When they reach the committee or public and other legislators the unintended consequences are addressed or if they can not be addressed they are killed in committee.
Many bills are brought forward, some for intent and to get a department's attention, while others with legitimate intent need to be worked over. Haler admitted the faults in the bills and agreed that they needed to be worked or needed to die. What part of the political process makes that sub par?
this is exactly what is not going on in Washington D.C. In Washington D.C. there are only bad bills from the perspective of opposite side of the Aisle. They kill every bill in one house or the other. There is no attempt to make a reasonable bill into a good bill, either it gets passed on party lines or not at all.
The legislature only passes good bills when there is some measures of checks and balances. When one party controls both houses and the Governors office, then all we get is crap, because nothing gets modified and we get the crap: one-side bills.
Post by: WSU on January 27, 2014, 05:06:34 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 05:42:36 PM
What is his background? A big problem in the leg is that many of the people making the laws don't have a background that helps them really think the consequences of their legislation through.
Some of the problem with people in office today is too much background. He listened to reason and is taking appropriate steps to serve his constituency. I'm good with this guy.
Post by: WSU on January 27, 2014, 05:46:51 PM
What is his background? A big problem in the leg is that many of the people making the laws don't have a background that helps them really think the consequences of their legislation through.
Some of the problem with people in office today is too much background. He listened to reason and is taking appropriate steps to serve his constituency. I'm good with this guy.
I can agree with that. I can see both sides of the coin. When I worked at the state senate (intern during college), I observed that many of the people there really just react to whatever the pressing issue is without thinking it through. That seemed true with everything from drunk driving to it not being illegal to have anal sex with horse (literally that was a big issue when I worked there). Most were not qualified to be making our state's laws beyond being elected.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 27, 2014, 06:20:17 PM
I just got a call from Rep Haler and we discussed both bills. The first, 2342, which would've limited or prohibited access to public waterways across smaller parcels of land was indeed aimed at helping select constituents. However, it was because there has been a problem with two families with children, and people coming onto their land and approaching the children with possible criminal intent. After exhausting his efforts with the county commissioners, his next recourse was with a House bill. This bill will be amended so that either the specific property is the only place addressed, or so that other areas are not closed off to fishing/access. If it even comes up to discussion, which at this point is up in the air, he's going to request it be tabled until proper wording can be added to protect public access.
A state law to protect a single property, where people may have or may have not approached children? Sounds like somebody needs a fence and not a law.
Is there a reason that the the county and possibly the police have not acted on these problems?
Post by: blackdog on January 27, 2014, 09:08:07 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 28, 2014, 05:39:56 AM
I just got a call from Rep Haler and we discussed both bills. The first, 2342, which would've limited or prohibited access to public waterways across smaller parcels of land was indeed aimed at helping select constituents. However, it was because there has been a problem with two families with children, and people coming onto their land and approaching the children with possible criminal intent. After exhausting his efforts with the county commissioners, his next recourse was with a House bill. This bill will be amended so that either the specific property is the only place addressed, or so that other areas are not closed off to fishing/access. If it even comes up to discussion, which at this point is up in the air, he's going to request it be tabled until proper wording can be added to protect public access.
A state law to protect a single property, where people may have or may have not approached children? Sounds like somebody needs a fence and not a law.
Is there a reason that the the county and possibly the police have not acted on these problems?
He took it to the county commissioners and they couldn't do anything, according to what he told me. The police can't do much without an actual crime being committed.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 28, 2014, 05:43:10 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 28, 2014, 06:00:21 AM
Post by: SCRUBS on January 28, 2014, 06:03:15 AM
He wants to pass a bill that would limit access to publicly owned recreational land because the wealth people who got him elected don’t want the great unwashed getting poorness all over their nice waterfront property. That sounds like a pretty Republican move to me. Same goes for invasive medical procedures in the name of being “tough on crime.” I’d bet lunch that someone he’s close to owns a DNA collection company that would find itself on the short list for that government contract.
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 28, 2014, 06:13:32 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 28, 2014, 06:48:31 AM
Post by: arees on January 28, 2014, 07:47:31 AM
Offering to amend the bill to only protect this one family runs perilously close to that "equal protection under the law" stuff in the Constitution. This family would be getting additional protection at the public expense (i.e. loss of access, a spate of parking lot building and a lot of law suits over what "adequate public parking" means).
This guy should not be in the business of writing bills.
I had an a guy working for me that was a good guy and took correction easily. He also took it frequently, on everything he did. He doesn't work for me any more.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 28, 2014, 07:51:23 AM
Justifying blocking everyone's access to public land because one home owner may have had an attempted crime in one place is completely bogus. Everyone who lives near a public amenity experiences more perceived crime and probably more real crime. It comes with the territory. If that homeowner doesn't want so much exposure to the public, they should move. Apparently living on the river is more important to them then their child's safety.
Offering to amend the bill to only protect this one family runs perilously close to that "equal protection under the law" stuff in the Constitution. This family would be getting additional protection at the public expense (i.e. loss of access, a spate of parking lot building and a lot of law suits over what "adequate public parking" means).
This guy should not be in the business of writing bills.
I had an a guy working for me that was a good guy and took correction easily. He also took it frequently, on everything he did. He doesn't work for me any more.
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2014, 07:52:59 AM
What seems important to me on the surface is that this person is listening to people who point out the consequences. I think that puts him ahead of some legislators. Glad to see that piano was able to talk reason with the guy, there's a good chance he heard from many others as well if he is going to make changes.
Post by: blackdog on January 28, 2014, 08:19:17 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2014, 08:40:55 AM
This same type of thing is happening on a lake I believe in Kitsap county with only one public lot. A Senator has been prohibiting the Public agency from developing public access. :bash:
Sorry to hear, if the lake is publicly owned that is a significant injustice. I hope that is corrected, it sounds like the senator you speak of does not care about the public interest.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 28, 2014, 08:46:11 AM
This same type of thing is happening on a lake I believe in Kitsap county with only one public lot. A Senator has been prohibiting the Public agency from developing public access. :bash:http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/jul/23/lake-tahuyeh-boat-launch-stopped-again/#axzz2riE06PiY (http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/jul/23/lake-tahuyeh-boat-launch-stopped-again/#axzz2riE06PiY)
Post by: snowpack on January 28, 2014, 10:57:59 AM
Justifying blocking everyone's access to public land because one home owner may have had an attempted crime in one place is completely bogus. Everyone who lives near a public amenity experiences more perceived crime and probably more real crime. It comes with the territory. If that homeowner doesn't want so much exposure to the public, they should move. Apparently living on the river is more important to them then their child's safety.For the bolded, and not saying this is the case for all you may be referring to, but the homes could've been there well before the 'problematic' land became owned by the public. Seems to be happening around the peninsula where government (WDFW mostly comes to mind) is buying up land for salmon habitat restoration and recreational access. Most of the ones I'm thinking of are small and fragmented in size. A set of issues was created where there were none previously. My opinion is this shouldn't be a statewide law to address a very localized problem; the guy should be pressuring the county or the police.
Offering to amend the bill to only protect this one family runs perilously close to that "equal protection under the law" stuff in the Constitution. This family would be getting additional protection at the public expense (i.e. loss of access, a spate of parking lot building and a lot of law suits over what "adequate public parking" means).
This guy should not be in the business of writing bills.
I had an a guy working for me that was a good guy and took correction easily. He also took it frequently, on everything he did. He doesn't work for me any more.
The rep should also look ahead for the law of unintended consequences. He may think that the parking bill will in a roundabout way solve this perceived child safety issue, but he may be creating one that is even worse. What if they actually build the parking lots? Some of the areas I am thinking of are small parcels of public land, that when they had no parking, were only really used by fisherman, kayakers and inner-tubers that just parked on the side of the road. Then the county put in small parking lots (4 cars) and a picnic table and trash can. Now they are hangouts for homeless, tweekers and meet up areas for gays that go do things in the bushes. In the past the seedy element may have assumed that it was private or that they couldn't use the land. Now with the parking lot/picnic tables/trash can the areas are now have trashed dumped everywhere, lots of used syringes, used condoms laying all over. Theft and other crime have gone up.