SB 5739 Allowing Cities/Towns to prohibit firearms in Parks and Recreational venues

Seattleite · Feb 14, 2013

Sparky508 said:
Here is the link for public comment on the bill.

https://washingtonleg.granicusideas.com/widget/agenda_items/SB 5739

Thanks for the link, Sparky508!

The public comment link asks if you "oppose", "neutral, or "support", and allows a 1000 word comment. The tally (oppose, neutral, support) is usually delivered to senator staff for their daily tally of public comments. The comments themselves are less important than "numbers" in favor, against, or on the fence.

Occasionally someone reads the comment section (optional). Here's my comment with the "oppose" position. (Spaces and punctuation count.)

This is contrary to Washington state having preemptory power of all such legislation. Such matters should be left to the attorney general to decide how best to regulate the state's interests,
and frankly the interests of law-abiding citizen voters. If this power is given to a lower jurisdiction, the content, and intent would likely circumvent the rights of state of Washington. The state would need to spend money unexpectedly to overturn such a notion. This sort of "feel good" legislation does nothing to make people safer, but its unintended consequence would cause people to feel safer while stripping law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. It is unfair and risky to make any citizen believe they are safer with a law that actually makes them a more likely victim. I am frankly surprised that this is even on the table, taking up dedicated activists time, as well as that of the state, in order to keep laws in alignment with the current (more than adequate) legislation.

Sparky508 · Feb 14, 2013

Here's the email I got from them:

Welcome to the Washington Legislature's Citizen Comments

Welcome to the Washington State Legislature’s online comments project. This is a trial program for the 2013 legislative session to see what value it may bring in helping the public provide input to their legislators on the bills under consideration this session. Statistical reports may be generated using aggregate data, but these are in no way a scientific poll or an accurate representation of general public sentiment. Your comments and opinions will be forwarded only to your legislators as input for them to evaluate pending legislation. If you desire direct contact with these or any other legislators, you should contact them directly via mail, phone, or email.
We ask for some personal information so that we can ensure that you are a resident of Washington and can direct your comment to the appropriate representative. We will not share this information with anyone beyond the Legislature.

Any questions? Contact us at: support@leg.wa.gov.
Thank you!
Washington State Legislature

This email was sent from https://washingtonleg.granicusideas.com.
Washington State Legislature, WA

Unsubscribe from future mailings

Difdi · Feb 14, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
They'll burn you alive.

Possibly, but generally the only people careless around firearms, such that they leave an AR-15 on the roof of their car, are cops.

I sent feedback on that legislature comment site:

Under the state constitution, it is equally constitutional to ban guns as it is to ban books. A law prohibiting exercise of a constitutional right in public parks will be either struck down by the courts almost instantly or will set a precedent if upheld that would be extremely dangerous.

More people throughout history have been killed by the malicious application of knowledge than by the malicious application of bullets. Almost any argument that can be made for restricting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens can be made at least equally strongly for banning "dangerous" knowledge.

And in the end, criminals aren't called criminals because of their obedience to the law. The only people affected by the proposed law would be the people who would never commit a crime in the first place.

No one is safer when good people are disarmed and bad people aren't. This bill does not promote public safety, it abolishes public safety.

mikeyb · Feb 19, 2013

Sent email to Kirk Pearson, who's on the committee. We go to the same church. I'll see if I can bend his ear next Sunday.

jt59 · Feb 20, 2013

Schlepnier said:
I think the state constitution is the best counter to this. my right to bear arms in defense of myself applies on public property without need for a CPL. any such park style language should violate the state constitution and should be addressed as such.

You must have very deep pockets and a willingness to spend it....none of the other exempted areas have been challenged in other public venues listed in the current law, why would this addition to current law be any different? Pre emption simply says that its the legislatures decision to decide these matters not local gov't. They can pretty much do what they want....and then see who has the bucks and will to fight it.

In any case, with only two days to go, this bill will likely die in committee. It is not currently scheduled for public hearing (required) if it is to exit the committee through "executive action". There is little time left to get both actions done (public hearing and executive action)....I think we done with this one.

LarryM · Feb 20, 2013

It would be nice if the libtard legislators in Olympia would actually think for themselves, rather than take orders from "Camarade" Obama and his three-ring circus...

They need to stick to what they do best; making access to children easier for homosexual pedophiles through marriage, making sure everyone has a dime-bag and rolling papers that want one, and making sure Planned Parenthood has plenty of money...

Leave my guns alone....

dadada · Feb 20, 2013

Alpine said:
CPLs take 30 days and sometimes longer (look @ Spokane) to get, and they don't deter crime, plus removing a concealed weapon from under clothes is not as quick as unholstering it from OC position.

As far as I can tell, there isn't a requirement that it be concealed. You just have to have a CPL, and can still open carry in the locations described. That would be the loophole they will try to "fix" next.

Alpine · Feb 20, 2013

dadada said:
As far as I can tell, there isn't a requirement that it be concealed. You just have to have a CPL, and can still open carry in the locations described. That would be the loophole they will try to "fix" next.

I think there are 2 problems with this:

1. LEOs will demand to see your CPL to ensure you really have one, whereas right now they can't do that without RAS.

2. "Average Intelligence" LEOs will assume that because the proposed statute says you need a CPL, that means you have to carry concealed. They will say the intent of the law is clear from the fact that a "concealed license" is required. Yeah, it's a leap in logic but it's somewhat intuitive. At the least you will be arguing and might be detained for a supervisor, at the worst you're headed to jail for 'mouthing off to a cop' (obstruction, resisting arrest, public disturbance etc.)

Easy solution: stop this bill!

SB 5739 Allowing Cities/Towns to prohibit firearms in Parks and Recreational venues

Seattleite

New member

Sparky508

Newbie

Difdi

Regular Member

mikeyb

Regular Member

jt59

Regular Member

LarryM

Regular Member

dadada

Regular Member

Alpine

Regular Member