PNW Guns Forum
Go Back   PNW Guns > PNW Guns > Gun Rights

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2013, 04:19 PM   #1
Rifleman
 
thejrod's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Marysville, WA
Posts: 196
Wa Assault Weapons Ban introduced

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil...Bills/5737.pdf
 
Join PNW Guns


Welcome to PNW Guns, a gun and firearm community for gun owners in the Pacific Northwest. We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the PNW Guns family!


Old 02-13-2013, 04:54 PM   #2
Rifleman
 
thejrod's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Marysville, WA
Posts: 196
This also gives Boz the authority to come search our houses once a year to ensure compliance.
 
Old 02-13-2013, 05:13 PM   #3
Marksman
 
pnwvolks's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Fall City
Posts: 305
This will never pass! I will still write my letters, but this is way too over bearing!
 
Old 02-13-2013, 05:16 PM   #4
Marksman
 
RK600's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Amboy, WA
Posts: 293
Holy fucking shit that is stupid. It also says I can't take it to the neighbors to go shooting....only at a range or my own property.
 
Old 02-13-2013, 05:29 PM   #5
Marksman
 
RK600's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Amboy, WA
Posts: 293
And also limit mags to 10 rounds. Well, you can have one that holds more but not at the same time or place you have the gun it goes with. Sheesh!!
 
Old 02-13-2013, 05:46 PM   #6
Marksman
 
RCJIM's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: why you asking b ?
Posts: 307
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.
24 Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture,
25 possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited
26 under this section is a public nuisance.
27 (2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her
28 control at one time both of the following:
29 (a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or
30 shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
31 (b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains
32 more than ten rounds of ammunition.
33 (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any of the
34 following:
35 (a) The possession of an unloaded assault weapon for the purpose of
36 permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency in this state.
SB 5737 p. 6
1 Any assault weapon relinquished pursuant to this subsection shall be
2 destroyed;
3 (b) The transfer of any assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer
4 or dealer to a law enforcement agency in this state for use by that
5 agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes;
6 (c) The possession of an assault weapon that was legally possessed
7 on the effective date of this section, but only if the person legally
8 possessing the assault weapon has complied with all of the requirements
9 of subsection (5) of this section;
10 (d) The possession of an assault weapon that has been permanently
11 disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.
12 (4) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any person:
13 (a) While lawfully engaged in shooting at a duly licensed, lawfully
14 operated shooting range;
15 (b) While lawfully participating in a sporting event officially
16 sanctioned by a club or organization established in whole or in part
17 for the purpose of sponsoring sport shooting events.
18 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was
19 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person
20 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
21 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of
22 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to
23 ensure compliance with this subsection;
24 (b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or
25 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use
26 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while
27 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of
28 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the
29 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container
30 during transport.
31 (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any person
32 in this state who, after the effective date of this section, acquires
33 title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession,
34 shall, within thirty days of acquiring title, do one of the following:
35 (a) Comply with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this
36 section;
37 (b) Dispose of the assault weapon pursuant to subsection (3)(a) of
38 this section; or
p. 7 SB 5737
1 (c) Permanently disable the assault weapon so that it is incapable
2 of discharging a projectile.
3 (7)(a) Any person convicted of violating subsection (1) or (2) of
4 this section is guilty of a class C felony.
5 (b) Any person convicted of violating subsection (5) of this
6 section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
7 (8) This section does not apply to:
8 (a) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies,
9 or other law enforcement officers of this or another state while acting
10 within the scope of their duties;
11 (b) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the
12 national guard or organized services, when on duty;
13 (c) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to
14 possess assault weapons; or
15 (d) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing,
16 or dealing in assault weapons, or the representative or agent of the
17 person who is properly licensed under federal or state laws to do so
18 and who is acting within the usual and ordinary course of the business.
 
Old 02-13-2013, 07:29 PM   #7
Gunslinger
 
MadManx's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Kirkland-Miami
Posts: 46
They can go fuck themselves.
 
Old 02-13-2013, 08:12 PM   #8
Gunslinger
 
MadManx's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Kirkland-Miami
Posts: 46
Washington State Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 02-13-2013, 09:49 PM   #9
Moderator
 
sunofnun's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: s. greenlake bitch
Posts: 1,684
can we get together a list of all their emails. I'll sticky it.. we can mass email the group.. and keep the messages coming from "us".
 
Old 02-13-2013, 10:27 PM   #10
Gunslinger
 
John MF Rambo's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Everett, WA
Posts: 56
A public nuisance? Really? Oh sorry to inconvenience the public with my rights.
 
Old 02-14-2013, 02:30 AM   #11
Marksman
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: WA
Posts: 463
Like I got nothing fucking better to do.....
 
Old 02-14-2013, 04:54 AM   #12
Rifleman
 
qballrail's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: South Puget Sound
Posts: 241
WTF? I thought WA was working on a Nullification Bill! What happend to that? That said, I have my doubts as to whether this will pass, and if it does, probably no where near its present form. They'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Cost alone on home inspections would drive our deficit up. While I agree with "common sense" laws, guidelines, really, because any responsible gun owner knows not to give access (knowingly or unknowingly) to a child. But it's like they've reversed course and now decided to thumb their noses up at gun owners?

So what do you guys think? How much, if any, of this bill will ever be made into law? Besides, they need to amend our State Constitution to make this "legal," right?

EDIT: I just sent a message to Patty Murray, the first author listed on this bill. Hopefully, she will listen. Won't get my hopes up.

Last edited by qballrail; 02-14-2013 at 05:05 AM.
 
Old 02-14-2013, 07:17 AM   #13
Marksman
 
ShelbyGuy's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Lacey, Wa
Posts: 356
makes me sick to my stomach
 
Old 02-14-2013, 07:40 AM   #14
Rifleman
 
thejrod's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Marysville, WA
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by qballrail View Post
EDIT: I just sent a message to Patty Murray, the first author listed on this bill. Hopefully, she will listen. Won't get my hopes up.
Call me jaded, but there are enough pictures of senators and representatives playing chess or looking at facebook on their laptops while "listening" to testimony against bills they authored or supported. There's no way she'd listen to any counterpoints.

And Patty Murray is one of the best examples of why we need term limits.
 
Old 02-14-2013, 07:52 AM   #15
Marksman
 
ShelbyGuy's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Lacey, Wa
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunofnun View Post
can we get together a list of all their emails. I'll sticky it.. we can mass email the group.. and keep the messages coming from "us".
Member Rosters & Information for 2013-2014


I would think this is not a canned responce, sent within 5 minutes after I sent my email

Hello Norm,

I hear you loud and clear. Trust me! Here are my thoughts:

The unspeakably tragic events in Newtown and other locations around the country continue to make the case that more freedom, allowing the individual to protect themselves and those around them, is needed—not less. To believe that a law, such as a gun-free zone or ban on modern sporting rifles will protect innocents from those intent on doing great harm to them, is to fail to acknowledge that Connecticut has both. I will stand firmly against any encroachment on the law abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. I swore an oath to do so.

Because I have taken an oath to ensure that the right to bear arms “shall not be impaired…” or “infringed,” I have co-sponsored HB 1371, The Washington State Firearms Freedom Act of 2013. This bill respects and solidifies the law abiding citizen’s U.S. and Washington State constitutional rights under both the second amendment and Article 1, Section 24, respectively.

The Washington State Firearms Freedom Act has four components:

1. The federal government would have no jurisdiction over firearms and ammunition that are produced and that remain exclusively within the boundaries of the State of Washington.

2. During the continuance of any state of emergency, when individual protection is needed most, neither the governor nor any governmental entity, or political subdivision of the state shall impose any restriction on the possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition that is otherwise authorized or guaranteed by law.

3. Makes unenforceable any federal law, rule, regulation or order created after January 1, 2013 intended to ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm, or that requires any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.

4. The FFA would solidify in state law that which is already held in case law--the
stand your ground doctrine. This doctrine states that the law-abiding citizen who is
attacked in a place where they have a right to be, have no duty to retreat and have
the right to stand their ground and meet force with defensive force.

Please show your support of the individual citizen’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms by contacting all members of the Washington State Legislature and asking them to stand for freedom by supporting this bill. Below is a link to legislator's contact information:

Member Rosters & Information for 2013-2014


Persevero,

Jason Overstreet, Representative (42nd - LD)
Washington State House of Representatives
Phone: 360-786-7980<tel:360-786-7980>
Office: PO BOX 40600 Olympia, WA 98504<x-apple-data-detectors://0/1>
 
Old 02-14-2013, 07:55 AM   #16
Marksman
 
RK600's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Amboy, WA
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShelbyGuy View Post
Member Rosters & Information for 2013-2014


I would think this is not a canned responce, sent within 5 minutes after I sent my email

Hello Norm,

I hear you loud and clear. Trust me! Here are my thoughts:

The unspeakably tragic events in Newtown and other locations around the country continue to make the case that more freedom, allowing the individual to protect themselves and those around them, is needed—not less. To believe that a law, such as a gun-free zone or ban on modern sporting rifles will protect innocents from those intent on doing great harm to them, is to fail to acknowledge that Connecticut has both. I will stand firmly against any encroachment on the law abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. I swore an oath to do so.

Because I have taken an oath to ensure that the right to bear arms “shall not be impaired…” or “infringed,” I have co-sponsored HB 1371, The Washington State Firearms Freedom Act of 2013. This bill respects and solidifies the law abiding citizen’s U.S. and Washington State constitutional rights under both the second amendment and Article 1, Section 24, respectively.

The Washington State Firearms Freedom Act has four components:

1. The federal government would have no jurisdiction over firearms and ammunition that are produced and that remain exclusively within the boundaries of the State of Washington.

2. During the continuance of any state of emergency, when individual protection is needed most, neither the governor nor any governmental entity, or political subdivision of the state shall impose any restriction on the possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition that is otherwise authorized or guaranteed by law.

3. Makes unenforceable any federal law, rule, regulation or order created after January 1, 2013 intended to ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm, or that requires any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.

4. The FFA would solidify in state law that which is already held in case law--the
stand your ground doctrine. This doctrine states that the law-abiding citizen who is
attacked in a place where they have a right to be, have no duty to retreat and have
the right to stand their ground and meet force with defensive force.

Please show your support of the individual citizen’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms by contacting all members of the Washington State Legislature and asking them to stand for freedom by supporting this bill. Below is a link to legislator's contact information:

Member Rosters & Information for 2013-2014


Persevero,

Jason Overstreet, Representative (42nd - LD)
Washington State House of Representatives
Phone: 360-786-7980<tel:360-786-7980>
Office: PO BOX 40600 Olympia, WA 98504<x-apple-data-detectors://0/1>
This man is good. I like this man.
 
Old 02-14-2013, 07:57 AM   #17
Sharpshooter
 
GixxerPete's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Renton, WA
Posts: 845
Quote:
Originally Posted by thejrod View Post
Call me jaded, but there are enough pictures of senators and representatives playing chess or looking at facebook on their laptops while "listening" to testimony against bills they authored or supported. There's no way she'd listen to any counterpoints.

And Patty Murray is one of the best examples of why we need term limits.
I would argue that Diane Feinstein is one of the best examples of why we need term limits. Or one of the best examples that Californians are fucking idiots for electing her again and again. I can't decide which.
 
Old 02-14-2013, 08:19 AM   #18
Moderator
 
sunofnun's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: s. greenlake bitch
Posts: 1,684
I got a good one back!


He's got my vote next time around.




Quote:

Dear Josh,

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: Shea .

Warm regards,

Jim Robinson
Legislative Assistant to
Matt Shea
State Representative
4th Legislative District
(360) 786-7984

In just a few clicks you can sign up for Rep Shea’s updates:
Subscribe to Rep. Shea's Online Newsletter


From: Josh Brantley [mailto:joshbrantley@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:15 AM
To: Josh Brantley
Subject: Thoughts on current legislation 1588

Good evening!

I wanted to take a minute of your time to chime in my opinions on legislation that is currently swirling around our country and our state.

Washington currentlyhas strong background check requirements in place. Furthermore, it isalready a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend,rent or transfer a gun to a person they know or should have known is notlegally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.It shouldbe noted that every year, tens of thousands of people fail to pass thebackground checks required for firearm purchases, yet only a fraction areprosecuted for providing false information. Before lawmakers begin creatingmore onerous rules and regulations, they should start enforcing the laws thatare currently on the books

Your efforts would be better spent ensuring enforcementof laws you have already passed.

House bill 1588 should be REJECTED as it is a redundancy at best, and is an egregious infringement of inalienable Second Amendment RIGHTS.

Sincerely,

Josh Bxxxxxxxxx

Seattle, wa 98103
206 xxx xxxx
 
Old 02-14-2013, 11:18 AM   #19
Marksman
 
RK600's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Amboy, WA
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunofnun View Post
I got a good one back!


He's got my vote next time around.
Hell yeah! There is hope yet.
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:44 PM   #20
Peashooter
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Santa Maria, CA
Posts: 8
Hey guys, I was just thinking about moving BACK to WA from CA. This is the kind of cr@p the libs in CA pull and I have had to put up with because of "the job" here. I always thought the libs in WA were more common sense folks. Please tell me the odds of this cr@p getting passed.
 
Old 02-14-2013, 03:38 PM   #21
Marksman
 
pnwvolks's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Fall City
Posts: 305
Seeing people get the letters back gives me hope. The one good thing about living out here in the foothills is all my local government tends to support the 2nd amendment.

Is it just me or are the Democrats seemingly pushing this country further and further apart. I tend to think this "issue" with guns is distraction politics!


Cheers and lets keep up the fight against the gun grabbers!
 
Old 02-14-2013, 07:03 PM   #22
Sniper
 
richardlpalmer's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 1,318
The odds? Well as there's a majority of Democrats in our Senate -- and they tend to vote the same way -- I would ordinarily think there was a good chance of this passing. But the way it's written is so over the top I have to say there's almost no chance of it passing.

I'm sure their hope is a "compromise" -- making some concessions here and there to get some from the other side. The end game will be pushing the wedge in juuuuuuust a little further.

From their perspective this is probably no different than gay marriage or the legalization of pot. It just needs to be brought up over and over and over again. Each time the voting will get a little closer. Each time more and more people will become "reasonable". And eventually it will fall.

But to be clear, I have no problem with the gay/pot things. The point being, not so many years ago who would have believed for a second that they'd both become legal?
 
Old 02-14-2013, 08:09 PM   #23
Marksman
 
pnwvolks's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Fall City
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by richardlpalmer View Post
The odds? Well as there's a majority of Democrats in our Senate -- and they tend to vote the same way -- I would ordinarily think there was a good chance of this passing. But the way it's written is so over the top I have to say there's almost no chance of it passing.

I'm sure their hope is a "compromise" -- making some concessions here and there to get some from the other side. The end game will be pushing the wedge in juuuuuuust a little further.

From their perspective this is probably no different than gay marriage or the legalization of pot. It just needs to be brought up over and over and over again. Each time the voting will get a little closer. Each time more and more people will become "reasonable". And eventually it will fall.

But to be clear, I have no problem with the gay/pot things. The point being, not so many years ago who would have believed for a second that they'd both become legal?
I agree with you completely. The difference is this is making some illegal and not legal so hopefully they will see that. Hopefully that will make the difference.

Then again we can only hope and keep writing our state govt.
 
Old 02-15-2013, 12:35 AM   #24
Sniper
 
richardlpalmer's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 1,318
To me I really see this being in the hands of our state's (and federal) supreme court. I think typically they make decisions based on the constitution. I mean, that's all they're supposed to do, right?

It has the feeling similar to when you do jury duty. Regardless of your gut feeling or emotion, you review the facts against the criteria that make up the law. If it fits you move forward to the next thing. If it doesn't, you have no choice but to acknowledge it. Personal belief and/or political spin doesn't matter.

I just figure if I can do that for a trial -- these people should be able to do it when evaluating a decision against the constitution. Obviously I could be wrong (witness CA, IL and NY), but that's what I see...
 
Reply

  PNW Guns > PNW Guns > Gun Rights

Tags
assault, ban, introduced, weapons



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @pnwguns PNW Guns RSS Feed

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2009 - 2010 PNW Guns. All rights reserved.