Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Sen. Adam Kline on latest gun initiatives

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA
    Posts
    3

    Sen. Adam Kline on latest gun initiatives

    Hi to all board members. I have received an email from Sen. Adam Kline that could be of interest to other gun enthusiasts. In my original message to the Senator, I asked him to schedule hearings for HB 1508 and HB 2471. It was prompted by an email from NRA mailing list.

    On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Kline, Sen. Adam <Adam.Kline@leg.wa.gov> wrote:
    Mr. <javamonkey>,

    Because I alone chose not to schedule these two bills for a hearing before the senate Judiciary Committee, I feel I owe the proponents an explanation. I am happy to provide it to you.

    First, my committee hears and votes upon an inordinate number of bills each legislative session. It’s one of the busier policy-making committees, not counting the two fiscal committees, Ways and Means and Transportation. Because the Senate Rules require committee chairpersons to act as the gatekeepers for their committees, in order to “edit” the agenda, it’s my duty to edit out those bills that, for any number of reasons, the chairperson feels shouldn’t go forward. I have taken this role seriously, and as my busy committee-members know, I’ve often let bills be scheduled on which I have my own concerns.

    Second, I made it a point to refuse these two bills in part because it appears that we liberals have been engaged in a one-way conversation on the issue of guns. When faced with reasonable measures on the subject, we’ve almost always voted Yes. Here are just a few examples from past years that have passed the Legislature with the complete and often unanimous support of the urban liberals, and have been signed into law by the Governor:

    2000
    · SSB 6052 -- Assisting volunteers in hunter safety programs. Authorized three dollars of the late renewal penalty for concealed weapons permit applications to be used to support volunteer firearm safety instructors. Final Passage: Senate (45-0) House (82-12)

    2003
    · SB 5083 -- Recognizing concealed weapon licenses issued by states that recognize Washington's concealed pistol license. Established reciprocal recognition of concealed weapon licenses between Washington and other states with substantially similar procedures and standards for issuing such licenses. Final Passage: Senate (48-0) House (93-2)

    2009-2010
    · 2SHB 1052 -- Concerning firearm licenses for persons from other countries. Established process for certain non-citizens (lawful permanent residents and non-immigrants living in Washington and in other states) to possess firearms and obtain a concealed pistol license in Washington. Final Passage: Passed both houses unanimously.

    · SB 5739 -- Revising provisions relating to renewing a concealed pistol license by members of the armed forces. Exempted members of the military serving on active duty outside Washington from the ten dollar late fee for late renewal of a concealed pistol license. Final Passage: Passed both houses unanimously.

    · HB 2226 --The procedures for a retired officer to apply to a local law enforcement agency for issuance of a firearms certificate, including the requirement for the officer to undergo a federal background check, are eliminated. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs ASPC must develop, and make available on its website, a model certificate to be used as a firearms qualification certificate for retired law enforcement officers. A retired law enforcement officer is deemed to satisfy the federal certification requirements if the officer possesses an approved firearms qualification certificate. Final Passage: Passed both houses unanimously.

    2011-2012

    · HB 1016: The crime of using a contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of a firearm is amended to exempt the use of a suppressor that is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law. Final Passage: Senate 47-0; House 88-4.

    · HB 1041: Correctional personnel and community corrections officers who have completed government sponsored law enforcement firearms training are exempt from restrictions on carrying a concealed pistol and carrying a pistol in a vehicle. Final Passage: Senate 48-0; House 92-4.


    Although many urban liberal legislators may have found these bills somewhat over-accommodating to the gun-lobby, we voted heavily for them in an effort to be reasonable and bipartisan. Some of us expected that this would evoke similar accommodations from the other side. Some of us simply put great stock in being reasonable and fair—that’s been a characteristic of liberal thinking: a sense of fairness, even to those with whom we disagree.

    Yet, with only one exception, whenever we have asked the gun-lobby for an equivalent accommodation, we have been rebuffed. The sole exception was HB 1498 (2009), which the NRA simply agreed to stay “neutral” on a bill that prohibited gun-possession by violent mentally ill individuals who have been involuntarily hospitalized because they are “dangerous to self or others.” Perhaps this was “reasonable” on their part, or perhaps it was because they recognized that they could not explain to the public how they could oppose it. Either way, it was the only time in my 15 years here that they have ever cooperated in placing any limit on firearms.

    The most glaring example of the pro-gun legislators’ lack of cooperation (in this case, with the encouragement of the NRA) was a bill to exercise the state’s option under the federal statute known as the Brady Act, to close the loophole in the background check requirement for guns sold at gun-shows. It has become routine for police officials to trace guns used in crimes to these gun-shows, where they are purchased on a no-questions-asked basis by people who we all agree have no business owning firearms, because they were either felons, or minors (under 21 for handguns), or adjudicated by the Superior Court to be mentally ill and “dangerous to self or others.” I can think of no more reasonable subject for legislation. Yet many who associate themselves with the gun-lobby claim to be “tough on crime”—and yet strongly opposed this bill that would have prevented criminals from getting guns. As a result, even as total crime numbers actually decrease, guns are used in an increasing percentage of the homicides and assaults that continue to victimize our constituents. And still, the NRA treats this bill as if it were a major invasion of Second Amendment rights—despite the Supreme Court’s upholding of identical laws in other states.

    The lesson that I have learned from the response of the pro-gun legislators over the years is that there is no sense in us liberals being “reasonable,” when there will be no reciprocity, no equivalent sense of fairness on their part. The efficient operation of any legislature in making policy depends on a sense of fairness. As President Obama learned last summer from the behavior of the House Republicans regarding the national debt, there is no sense in being fair to people who will not or cannot be fair in return. Short of this understanding, a legislature still might get its work done if the two sides on any issue are willing to make the “deals” necessary to make policy. But there can’t even be a deal with members who take the most absolute positions, and sign public pledges never to “back down.” Because of this—and only because of this—those of us who have always sought reasonable limits on the use of firearms are finding ourselves a bit tired of all this.

    So, speaking only for myself, I’m tired of being reasonable. When there is a partner willing to be fair, I’ll be fair. When there is a partner willing to make a deal, I’ll deal. When there is neither, I’ll do neither. That’s what you’re seeing.

    Adam Kline
    Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee

    P.S.: Regarding HB 1508, I’m not so sure it’s all that reasonable. The bill would exempt shooting-ranges from the control of local governments on the basis of noise-ordinance violations. Here’s an excerpt from one of several emails from neighbors of the shooting range in question:

    “Please oppose HB 1508. The vague statement within the bill about a change in the “nature” of activities in gun clubs and allowing for expansion of such clubs make this a dangerous bill for neighborhoods like mine.

    I purchased my home in Bremerton in 1991. For over a decade, I was not even aware that the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club existed nearby. Then, the club expanded from 3 to 18 ranges, began allowing large-caliber, automatic weapons, cannons and exploding targets, and, as a result, our neighborhood was terrorized for years with noise and stray bullets until last week when Judge Susan Serko of Pierce County found in favor of the Kitsap County Prosecutors. My own home was struck, as were the homes of at least five of my neighbors, during KRRC’s lawless years. (see Judge Serko’s verdict for complete information about this case). Prior to this past weekend, our biggest fear was that the next stray bullet would strike a person, not a home. The land on which KRRC is situated was polluted and wetlands were bulldozed over. (Again, this is well-documented in this court case.) HB 1508 would allow expansion of shooting ranges to completely destroy the lives of nearby residents. The “nature” of activity at ranges doesn’t change, so this wording within the bill is worthless.

    My husband and many of my neighbors enjoy shooting at the Poulsbo Gun Club and other ranges in the area that operate safely. A native of Yakima, I also shot for sport at one time. We are not anti-gun. We are for protections for citizens from reckless organizations that would be allowed to expand without regard for those living nearby. This is a dangerous bill. Please vote to defeat HB 1508.”

    __________________________________________________ __________

    Senator Adam Kline | 37th Legislative District Chair of Senate Judiciary Committee | Washington State Senate

    (360) 786.7688 | 223 Cherberg Building | Olympia, WA 98504-0600
    Last edited by javamonkey; 02-25-2012 at 02:42 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by That Dork Kline View Post
    · SB 5739 -- Revising provisions relating to renewing a concealed pistol license by members of the armed forces. Exempted members of the military serving on active duty outside Washington from the ten dollar late fee for late renewal of a concealed pistol license. Final Passage: Passed both houses unanimously.

    · HB 2226 --The procedures for a retired officer to apply to a local law enforcement agency for issuance of a firearms certificate, including the requirement for the officer to undergo a federal background check, are eliminated. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs ASPC must develop, and make available on its website, a model certificate to be used as a firearms qualification certificate for retired law enforcement officers. A retired law enforcement officer is deemed to satisfy the federal certification requirements if the officer possesses an approved firearms qualification certificate. Final Passage: Passed both houses unanimously.

    2011-2012

    · HB 1041: Correctional personnel and community corrections officers who have completed government sponsored law enforcement firearms training are exempt from restrictions on carrying a concealed pistol and carrying a pistol in a vehicle. Final Passage: Senate 48-0; House 92-4.
    Those 3 do not count as helping gun owners. They are self-serving laws that simply reward their own (government employees). The sad thing is, Republicans supported them too.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 02-25-2012 at 02:50 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Kline is a piece of ****. His screed is not shocking. His idea of being "reasonable" is to restrict firearms, a guaranteed right, greater than vehicles, pools, etc. "But," he might say, "those other things are necessities and don't kill people as a function of one of their ordinary usages."

    "True," I would reply, "yet it's amazing that more die from things which you view as less intrinsically dangerous when their necessity is arguable compared to alternatives and their regulatory status is minimal compared to firearms."

    The fact is, he's not reasonable about guns because he personally doesn't like them, not because there's any evidence his policies would benefit the people of this state.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  4. #4
    Regular Member FMJ 911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    People's Republic of Snohomishia
    Posts
    351
    This all sorta reminds me of my Dad's friend from Prauge, Czech Republic. He said over there back in the 1960's & '70's, they did had access to gun ranges. But there were some problems with that. For one: You couldn't own any guns, and the Soviet-Run Czech Gov't Sent out propaganda disproving "Gun Ownership". If you were caught with a "Illegal" gun, you were considered a Traitor/Rebel and Imprisoned or Executed. Beside that, the KGB could simply make you "Disappear" If they perceived you as a threat.

    So back to my original point, The Soviets knew they could not wipe every gun from the face of the country, and to pacify gun owners, they allowed a few ranges to stay open, but they were tightly controlled. To go shooting, you had to show travel papers, and explain as well as prove that you were not a bad guy, then you were granted access. From there you would rent a Rifle. The choices were very limited, and from what I have learned, all that was available were .22 "Target" Rifles All "Single-Shot", No Semi-Auto's or "Repeaters" like what we all have over here. Then you'd be allowed to shoot, all while under the watchful eye of Armed Guards. After some target shooting, you had to immediately return the gun to the "Gun Keeper" where it was promptly locked in a secure cabinet, Then you were escorted out of the facility.

    Now I don't know what the "Range Rules" must have been like, but I can only imagine that they were very strict ones indeed.

    Thank goodness for the Constitution!

    (These are stories told by a refugee from Communist-Run Czechoslovakia. The facts may not be 100%, but they are close enough)
    "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." — George Patton

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    2

    I recieved the same mailing, here's how I responded.

    Quote Originally Posted by javamonkey View Post
    Hi to all board members. I have received an email from Sen. Adam Kline that could be of interest to other gun enthusiasts. In my original message to the Senator, I asked him to schedule hearings for HB 1508 and HB 2471. It was prompted by an email from NRA mailing list.
    Pyroray's response

    Sen. Kline,

    I respect your input on these issues, but have some issues with your reasoning of course, because I’m an unyielding conservative. The issue of the second amendment is that the liberal agenda keeps chinking away at the armor and will eventually be in a position to say I can’t own what I want to own or recreate the way I want to recreate in the name of removing rights of honest citizens, while criminals still commit crimes with guns. The issue has never been to cut crime, only stiffer penalties against armed criminals can do that, the issue is the elimination of rights. And to stack the argument that one is unyielding is to say you are unyielding yourself. Compromise is negotiated not expected. Compromise does not mean both sides agree, it means someone has sacrificed their values. Fairness is not the issue here, to be unfair implies “it’s not being done my way”. In other words your argument may appear fair to the liberal voter but not to me. I’m willing to accept the current gun regulations and additional penalties to criminals with guns, but not sacrifice my rights simply because some”ONE” doesn’t believe I should own a gun due to their fears and sense of fair.

    I can’t disagree with the gun show dilemma but I have heard no reasonable way to deal with that on either side. Gun shows have gone on for years and are a way of life to some. Even those that radically oppose any regulation have their rights. And eliminating that is eliminating rights. But I do know a gun shop owner that totally agrees, and not just because individuals are not buying guns from him, but because of what you have state, is a reason to somehow regulate beyond reason the purchase of guns from a gun show. I have not heard a compromise on that issue.

    And as far of a shooting range up wind houses that could even potentially get hit, sounds stupid on two sides and does not represent any other ranges in the state that I’m aware of. Either there are some morons at the gun range that are shooting in directions not within the realm of reality of a gun range. Or some thieving developer built houses in an area that shouldn’t have been approved for houses downwind of a gun range and not behind the hill and only showed them during hours of non-operation of the gun range. This is a safety issue beyond what the law is going after and not an excuse to penalize everyone else for some idiots or scoundrels actions. This is clearly a safety issue beyond anyone’s reason for dispute.

    We have many forms of making citizens aware of dangers in their homes, neighborhoods and communities. I recently attended a meeting in Airway Heights pertaining to making everyone aware that there is an Air Force Base and Airplanes fly overhead and they make noise and they can crash and when you sell a house or rent an apartment and sell a lot or open a business you are made aware. This is the same that should go on around established gun ranges. Then people have a choice of where they live and have to live with that choice, not whine and snivel and demand rights be removed from others because it’s not fair.

    One last thing, I do truly respect your views and your right to express them. But as a representative of the citizens of the state of Washington and the gate keeper for what goes to hearing, you do not have the right to be “tired of being reasonable”. That is the reason there is no reasoning when it comes to partisan politics, to be a good “statesman” you have to be above that.

    Thanks for your representation I hope you continue to learn and improve how to serve your constituents.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by pyroray View Post
    Pyroray's response

    Sen. Kline,

    I respect your input on these issues, but have some issues with your reasoning of course, because I’m an unyielding conservative. The issue of the second amendment is that the liberal agenda keeps chinking away at the armor and will eventually be in a position to say I can’t own what I want to own or recreate the way I want to recreate in the name of removing rights of honest citizens, while criminals still commit crimes with guns. The issue has never been to cut crime, only stiffer penalties against armed criminals can do that, the issue is the elimination of rights. And to stack the argument that one is unyielding is to say you are unyielding yourself. Compromise is negotiated not expected. Compromise does not mean both sides agree, it means someone has sacrificed their values. Fairness is not the issue here, to be unfair implies “it’s not being done my way”. In other words your argument may appear fair to the liberal voter but not to me. I’m willing to accept the current gun regulations and additional penalties to criminals with guns, but not sacrifice my rights simply because some”ONE” doesn’t believe I should own a gun due to their fears and sense of fair.

    I can’t disagree with the gun show dilemma but I have heard no reasonable way to deal with that on either side. Gun shows have gone on for years and are a way of life to some. Even those that radically oppose any regulation have their rights. And eliminating that is eliminating rights. But I do know a gun shop owner that totally agrees, and not just because individuals are not buying guns from him, but because of what you have state, is a reason to somehow regulate beyond reason the purchase of guns from a gun show. I have not heard a compromise on that issue.

    And as far of a shooting range up wind houses that could even potentially get hit, sounds stupid on two sides and does not represent any other ranges in the state that I’m aware of. Either there are some morons at the gun range that are shooting in directions not within the realm of reality of a gun range. Or some thieving developer built houses in an area that shouldn’t have been approved for houses downwind of a gun range and not behind the hill and only showed them during hours of non-operation of the gun range. This is a safety issue beyond what the law is going after and not an excuse to penalize everyone else for some idiots or scoundrels actions. This is clearly a safety issue beyond anyone’s reason for dispute.

    We have many forms of making citizens aware of dangers in their homes, neighborhoods and communities. I recently attended a meeting in Airway Heights pertaining to making everyone aware that there is an Air Force Base and Airplanes fly overhead and they make noise and they can crash and when you sell a house or rent an apartment and sell a lot or open a business you are made aware. This is the same that should go on around established gun ranges. Then people have a choice of where they live and have to live with that choice, not whine and snivel and demand rights be removed from others because it’s not fair.

    One last thing, I do truly respect your views and your right to express them. But as a representative of the citizens of the state of Washington and the gate keeper for what goes to hearing, you do not have the right to be “tired of being reasonable”. That is the reason there is no reasoning when it comes to partisan politics, to be a good “statesman” you have to be above that.

    Thanks for your representation I hope you continue to learn and improve how to serve your constituents.
    Ha Ha he responded... he call me stupid!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by pyroray View Post
    Ha Ha he responded... he call me stupid!
    post it?

  8. #8
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Direct from the horses ass...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=gKs8PV3eY4k

    Senator Kline, you are a public servant, you do not have the right to stop being reasonable, you do not have the privilege of stopping the peoples business.

  9. #9
    Regular Member FMJ 911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    People's Republic of Snohomishia
    Posts
    351
    I watched the whole video. I was not impressed.
    "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." — George Patton

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761
    From a purely political perspective, I think he has a point.

    That's not to mean I think we should compromise - far from it. We just shouldn't expect any more token legislation that favors our side. I've no problem with that as long as we don't give them any ground.

    I'm quite happy to be at a legislative impasse in a state that the Brady's give such a low grade to.

  11. #11
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025

    Ditz...

    Too long in this position of power....which of those bills had any real affect for positive change on 2A issues for citizens? He was "cheesey" on the suppressor legislation? I wonder what he got for bringing it forward....or was threatend with.

    While this reports back to his "district", the seat he holds and legislation he brings up or "kills", impacts all Washingtonians.... It is sad that while he has a different leadership responsibility, but no real accountability except to those casting district votes, he is unable to discern the difference.
    Last edited by jt59; 02-27-2012 at 07:54 PM.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  12. #12
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    I'd like someont to explain to me what this mysterious "gunshow loophole" is. People selling guns at gunshows are subject to the same laws that anyone else is subject to. FFL dealers must still call in a NICS check, and private sales are the same as outside the gunshow. So, how are gunshows any different than buying/selling guns outside gunshows?
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SpyderTattoo View Post
    I'd like someont to explain to me what this mysterious "gunshow loophole" is. People selling guns at gunshows are subject to the same laws that anyone else is subject to. FFL dealers must still call in a NICS check, and private sales are the same as outside the gunshow. So, how are gunshows any different than buying/selling guns outside gunshows?

    Correct. Quite a mystery...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA
    Posts
    3
    It looks like Sen. Kline is on a crusade against gun owners in our state. Today he, and two other fellow senators, decided to exploit the Bremerton elementary school shooting to introduce a new bill:

    SB 6628 - 2011-12 Concerning reckless endangerment resulting from unsafe storage of firearms

    Needless to say, in the Bremerton shooting tragedy the owner of the gun possessed it illegally in the first place, meaning that the law Kline proposes would not change a thing. It is said, that a public figure of this caliber uses child's death to play the political game of not being reasonable.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •