EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
John do you still have the email in which Donna claimed the bill was pulled because Sherry believed is wasn't viable?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Appleton pulls HB 1012 due to "threats from gun owners"
- Thread starter compmanio365
- Start date
John do you still have the email in which Donna claimed the bill was pulled because Sherry believed is wasn't viable?
oneeyeross
Regular Member
The original poster was correct, it is EVERY adult male. You don't have to "join" the militia, just being male and of age is enough. Further, in US v Miller (307 US 174) the Supreme Court wrote "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021607/posts
Notice that they said two important things, one, that the militia composed all males physically capable of acting and two, that they would appear bearing arms supplied by themselves of the kind in common use.
Here is the militia law:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Correct.
kparker
Regular Member
Yeah, I feel SOOOO discriminated against! What's up with this blatant ageism in the US Code?
oneeyeross
Regular Member
well, if'n you're retired military, that doesn't apply...
JoeSparky
Centurion
I guess you touched on it with "bigoted" but you missed MOST of "racist" in your comment.... Just trying to be accurate!
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
Really b(^%h?
You wanted a bill to be ignored until it passed?
F^*% you, I'm glad people know where you live. Maybe they can send you a 'Thank You' letter for being smart and not trying to pass bills that you want to hide from the public.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Racism?? LOL that is SO 1980-something. Bigotry in the leftist-liberal sense has moved so far beyond simple racism. It now also entails sexism, class-ism, preference-ism, or whatever else one happens to be disagreeing with the liberal about at the moment, or my personal favorite, "speciesism"
. Remember, when you disagree with a contemporary liberal, you are not merely wrong, you are also a "bad name."JoeSparky
Centurion
Racism?? LOL that is SO 1980-something. Bigotry in the leftist-liberal sense has moved so far beyond simple racism. It now also entails sexism, class-ism, preference-ism, or whatever else one happens to be disagreeing with the liberal about at the moment, or my personal favorite, "speciesism"
Yep, I keep beating my head:banghead: trying to understand the liberal..... "Tolerance means you MUST AGREE with the liberal" no matter how deluded the argument! :banghead:And sorry about not putting an "LOL" at the end of my post you responded too.
Last edited:
Bill Starks
State Researcher
Dear Mr. Starks:
Your request (below) was forwarded to this office for reply. You have requested records that Representative Appleton’s office might have received in the nature of threats regarding HB 1012. The House cannot provide any records meeting your request for a couple of reasons.
First, your request encompasses information that does not fall within the definition of public records as applied to the House and Senate. RCW 42.56.010(2) states in relevant part:
"Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.
RCW 40.14.100 provides that:
"legislative records" shall be defined as correspondence, amendments, reports, and minutes of meetings made by or submitted to legislative committees or subcommittees and transcripts or other records of hearings or supplementary written testimony or data thereof filed with committees or subcommittees in connection with the exercise of legislative or investigatory functions but does not include the records of an official act of the legislature kept by the secretary of state, bills and their copies, published materials, digests, or multi-copied matter which are routinely retained and otherwise available at the state library or in a public repository, or reports or correspondence made or received by or in any way under the personal control of the individual members of the legislature.
Consequently, to the degree that Representative Appleton received any personal correspondence on this bill, that information would not fall within the scope of the Public Records Act.
Furthermore, the House permits members who are sole sponsors of a bill to withdraw pre-filed bill(s) from further consideration prior to introduction without needing to provide a reason. This happens very rarely, but does occur occasionally. So, to the degree that the Representative felt threatened or intimidated by any form of communication, those materials would not have to be provided to the House.
Thank you for your patience while we sorted this out. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Timothy Sekerak
House Counsel
Washington State House of Representatives
360-786-7767
Your request (below) was forwarded to this office for reply. You have requested records that Representative Appleton’s office might have received in the nature of threats regarding HB 1012. The House cannot provide any records meeting your request for a couple of reasons.
First, your request encompasses information that does not fall within the definition of public records as applied to the House and Senate. RCW 42.56.010(2) states in relevant part:
"Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.
RCW 40.14.100 provides that:
"legislative records" shall be defined as correspondence, amendments, reports, and minutes of meetings made by or submitted to legislative committees or subcommittees and transcripts or other records of hearings or supplementary written testimony or data thereof filed with committees or subcommittees in connection with the exercise of legislative or investigatory functions but does not include the records of an official act of the legislature kept by the secretary of state, bills and their copies, published materials, digests, or multi-copied matter which are routinely retained and otherwise available at the state library or in a public repository, or reports or correspondence made or received by or in any way under the personal control of the individual members of the legislature.
Consequently, to the degree that Representative Appleton received any personal correspondence on this bill, that information would not fall within the scope of the Public Records Act.
Furthermore, the House permits members who are sole sponsors of a bill to withdraw pre-filed bill(s) from further consideration prior to introduction without needing to provide a reason. This happens very rarely, but does occur occasionally. So, to the degree that the Representative felt threatened or intimidated by any form of communication, those materials would not have to be provided to the House.
Thank you for your patience while we sorted this out. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Timothy Sekerak
House Counsel
Washington State House of Representatives
360-786-7767
MSG Laigaie
Campaign Veteran
Sorted what out, Bill? I do not see anything but a "loophole" that does not address the fact that she lied. I think it is time for a direct request.
See this from the article in the Wa Post.
Bezon declined to provide copies of emails or transcripts of voice messages to The Associated Press, saying she wanted to spare Appleton, who has not seen the worst of them, the details contained therein. But she said the most concerning included information about where Appleton lived.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
So what now? Do we keep trying?
is it possible to argue slander? I'm looking at Libel under RCW 9.58.010 and it doesn't seem to apply.
It seems she may be out of our reach, is she even required to maintain the emails?
one other thing, the Kitsap Sun mentioned one of the emails (the most "threatening") was submitted the WSP for investigation. wouldn't their records be subject to request? if we can show "the worst threat" wasn't that bad (assuming it's not) then maybe that will work.
Last edited:
MSG Laigaie
Campaign Veteran
Were there ever any emails? Well, at least one.........
“There was no direct or immediate threat, but there was disturbing language,” said Arras, adding that his office discussed it with the Washington State Patrol and continues to monitor the situation.
I have emailed appleton (Brady Representitive)directly and should get an email back eventually.
"
“There was no direct or immediate threat, but there was disturbing language,” said Arras, adding that his office discussed it with the Washington State Patrol and continues to monitor the situation.
I have emailed appleton (Brady Representitive)directly and should get an email back eventually.
"
rapgood
Regular Member
Records of an ongoing investigation are not subject to the PRA.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
now, if the investigation has been closed, or the State patrol recieved the email and decided there was no violation of the law and wasn't really a "threat" is there a record that can be requested?
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
In today's world I can find out where someone lives in a matter of a few seconds.
MSG Laigaie
Campaign Veteran
said Arras, adding that his office discussed it with the Washington State Patrol and continues to monitor the situation.
Is monitoring the situation the same as an ongoing investigation?
I directly confronted appleton and received a reply from bezon. It is in the HB1012 thread.
skeith5
Regular Member
We'll have to look at case law to see if we can get emails. Usually emails through a government email address are available through an open records request but it looks like the legislators we careful to exempt themselves from that.
Scott
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Scott
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Bill Starks
State Researcher
part of my email to Appleton