OT - New Bill Of Interest.

I was scoping out the WA state legislative page, and came across this little gem.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6274.pdf

If I read this correctly, if it passes, it's a big thumb to nose to the Federales. Am I reading this wrong?

Also, found this one too...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6272.pdf

Sounds good on the surface but you have to remember the feds and the federal courts statist judges have twisted the meaning of regulate as it pertains to the interstate commerce clause, from make regular to impose restrictions upon.

Then they granted themselves the power to regulate (impose restrictions upon) because by you making and producing and keeping it yourself you have still affected interstate commerce.

Wickard v Filburn,

Gonzales v Raich,

And some others, both cases are a travesty in overstepping constitutional limits on government and ignoring totally the intent of the constitution as a law restricting the Federal government.

The straws they grasp at is ridiculous. Look at some that many of take as victories. Brown vs. Board of education, they didn't rule on it on constitutional grounds at all, they could have (and still desegregated schools), but decided instead to use false science (even when it was proven to be false at the time) and garner power to make a new law something not granted as a power to the judiciary.

WOD said:

I was scoping out the WA state legislative page, and came across this little gem.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6274.pdf

If I read this correctly, if it passes, it's a big thumb to nose to the Federales. Am I reading this wrong?

Also, found this one too...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6272.pdf

Click to expand...

Both of these bills are dead for the current session, but will be automatically re-introduced in the upcoming session.

6274: short version - SB 6274 - DIGEST
Establishes the Washington firearms freedom act.
Exempts from regulation under the commerce clause of the
United States Constitution, firearms, firearms accessories,
and ammunition that is manufactured and retained in this
state.

6272: looks much more interesting in what it says. I know Mike Carrell and he is a 2A advocate, and sits on the Judiciary committee where this bill will be seated. Review the sponsors and you'll see this bill is (at this point) a partisan issue (all R's), but has two judicary committee members (Roach) involved and one on the rules committee where it will end up if it gets any traction.

This bill should be monitored at least, but in the late fall, notes sent to the sponsors to let them know that it is an issue of importance to constituents and request a public hearing....

jt

Then I would suggest we make it known to our own individual states Reps, that we are in favor of them reigning in our federal governments powers.

WOD said:

Then I would suggest we make it known to our own individual states Reps, that we are in favor of them reigning in our federal governments powers.

Click to expand...

.....to something just short of Anarchy....it is a delicate balance.

jt59 said:

.....to something just short of Anarchy....it is a delicate balance.

Click to expand...

Using your post talking point...

The anarchy of the so called wild west was less chaotic and more civilized before governments were formed. And the problems with U.S. treatment of Indians (much like the blow back from our foreign policies today). Standing army warning the forefathers warned us about.......

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

WOD said:

I was scoping out the WA state legislative page, and came across this little gem.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6274.pdf

If I read this correctly, if it passes, it's a big thumb to nose to the Federales. Am I reading this wrong?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the histories of these types of Bills are chock-full of failures. Typically, the federal govt looks to things like the equipment used to manufacture the goods (regardless of whether it's a firearm, or automobile accessories, or whatever) and defeat the "all in Washington" argument by pointing out that the machinery and electricity it uses (if it is "imported" from another state, quite common), gasoline, trucks hauling goods on freeways (remember, they're "Interstate Highways") and the trucks hauling goods, raw materials, etc. all pay taxes to the U.S. govt for the privilege of driving on those highways, and on and on and on and declare that the imported electricity, imported gasoline (we generally don't produce our oil in WA), materials etc. all affect Interstate Commerce and thus, the goods they produce, are subject to federal regulation.

So, even if the Bill passes, it stands an excellent chance of either being defeated in the courts, or having its applicability severely limited by the courts.

I agree, it sucks.

(3) Law abiding citizens of Washington shall not have their gun or
5 ammunition rights waived by any governmental agency nor shall their
6 guns or ammunition be tracked with markings or radio frequency
7 identification dust, paint, or any other direct identifiers.

Click to expand...

WTF, RF dust or paint???



I think Montana pass one similar to 6274

WOD said:

I was scoping out the WA state legislative page, and came across this little gem.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6274.pdf

If I read this correctly, if it passes, it's a big thumb to nose to the Federales. Am I reading this wrong?

Also, found this one too...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6272.pdf

Click to expand...

One problem with that SB 6274.. The dates are wrong. Send a letter to the library of Congress to get a copy of the Washington State Constitution that is on record there. It was dated 1878 and looks nothing like the one from 1889. There is no record of any constitution for Washington from 1889.

And no Congress did not approve the 1889 Constitution it did approve the 1878 Constitution. I have not even finished reading it and it's already too full of holes.