• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Legislature Back In Session, Here We Go... New Gun Laws

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

I gota response today from Kirk Pearson (R-39)
Dear Paul

Thank you for your message regarding SB 6304.

Like you I am a strong supporter of our second amendment, and I will not support any new gun control bills.

Sincearly

Kirk Pearson

I went to High School with Kirk. He's one of the good guys.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Right Wing Wacko wrote:
I gota response today from Kirk Pearson (R-39)
Dear Paul

Thank you for your message regarding SB 6304.

Like you I am a strong supporter of our second amendment, and I will not support any new gun control bills.

Sincearly

Kirk Pearson

I went to High School with Kirk. He's one of the good guys.
He's that old, huh? LOL
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

XD45PlusP wrote:
SB 6304:

Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Higher Education Jan24th at 10:00 AM

Here are the Committee members. Please email them....

http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/HIE/Members.htm

I noticed that one of them (Shin) whom is on the committee, is also a sponsor of this bill. Can you say "Conflict Of Interest"???

SONOFABITCH!!!! That jackhole is from my district. GRRR!!!... I think I may have gone to high school with his son. I'll see where I can get withthis...
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

XD45PlusP wrote:
SB 6304:

Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Higher Education Jan24th at 10:00 AM

Here are the Committee members. Please email them....

http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/HIE/Members.htm

I noticed that one of them (Shin) whom is on the committee, is also a sponsor of this bill. Can you say "Conflict Of Interest"???

That's not really the definition of conflict of interest. A conflict of interest would be if he had some sort of financial stake in the passage of the bill. Just being on the committee doesn't mean much. Everyone is on several committees.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Here is the latest list of bills filed that relate to guns.

*BILL STATUS:*
The following bills have been filed for the 2007-08 biennium:
Bill # Subject Sponsor Status
HB 1011 Alien firearm licenses Moeller (D-49) H. Jud.
HB 1014 Mandatory safe storage Moeller (D-49) H. Jud.
HB 1026 Gun show loophole Williams (D-22) H. Jud.
HB 1126 CPL extension Morrell (D-25) S. Jud.
HB 1633 Prohibit confis. during emerg. Roach (R-31) H. Jud.
HB 1764 Prohibit stun guns for students Lantz (D-26) H. Jud.
HB 2036 Shooting range protection Van De Wege (D-24) H. Jud.
HB 2168 Gun safety education program Chase (D-32) H. Jud.
HB 2177 Weapon definition Moeller (D-49) H. Rules
HB 2268 Weapons at schools Lantz (D-26) H. Rules
HB 2706 Notification ­ hunting land Blake (D-19) H. Ag/NR
HB 2956 Possession while hunting Haler (R-8) H. Ag/NR
SB 5197 Gun show loophole Tom (D-48) S. Rules
SB 5456 Alien firearm licenses Morton (R-7) S. Rules
SB 5465 Restoration of gun rights Schoesler (R-9) S. Rules
SB 5516 Prohibit confis. during emerg. Stevens (R-39) S. Jud.
SB 5791 School gun safety program Sheldon (D-35) S. K-12 Educ.
SB 6304 Firearm possession on campus Kohl-Welles (D-36) S. HiEd
SB 6322 Weapon definition-courthouses Kohl-Welles (D-36) S. Jud.
SB 6526 Involuntary commitment Kline (D-37) S. Jud.




And GOAL's position on each one:

*GOAL POSITION ON BILLS:*
HB 1011 SUPPORT IF AMENDED
HB 1014 OPPOSE
HB 1026 OPPOSE
HB 1126 SUPPORT
HB 1633 SUPPORT
HB 1764 NEUTRAL
HB 2036 SUPPORT
HB 2168 SUPPORT
HB 2177 OPPOSE
HB 2268 NEUTRAL
HB 2706 SUPPORT IF AMENDED
HB 2956 SUPPORT IF AMENDED
SB 5197 OPPOSE
SSB 5197 OPPOSE
SB 5456 SUPPORT
SB 5465 SUPPORT
SB 5516 SUPPORT IF AMENDED
SB 5791 SUPPORT
SB 6304 OPPOSE
SB 6322 OPPOSE
SB 6526 OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
 

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX,



Thank you for your e-mail regarding Senate Bill 6304, allowing institutions of higher education to adopt rules regulating firearms on campus. This bill was referred to the Senate Higher Education Committee and as of today has not been scheduled for a public hearing.



Paul, thank you for bringing your views to my attention. If you would like to receive periodic updates as this legislation makes its way through the Senate, please let me know. In the meantime, rest assured that I am an advocate of the Second Amendment and have a record of protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to "keep and bear arms."



Sincerely,

Senator Val Stevens

39th Legislative District

 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

Here's mine:

Senator McAuliffe:

I am writing you to urge you to reconsider SB 6304, which seeks to give institutes of higher education the ability to define “Gun-Free Zones” enforced by law. I am also writing my representatives to urge that they oppose this bill should it make it as far as the House of Representatives.

It has been made painfully obvious over the last year that declaring a college or university, or shopping mall, or office building, or church, or indeed any location, as a “Gun Free Zone,” where possession of a firearm is prohibited by law, is totally ineffective in preventing acts of violent crime at that location.

Simply put, if someone has already made the decision to commit the crime of murder (possibly as many times as they are able), and has already made the decision to commit suicide at the end of their rampage rather than face arrest, what do they care if they risk arrest by taking firearms to where they intend their mayhem? How will such a law hinder them in any way?

Please consider the stark illustration by Jeanne Assam in Colorado of how effective having a responsible, armed person present is in keeping an attempted massacre from going very far. If she had been disarmed by law, who knows how many people would have been murdered. Dozens?

In a gun-free zone in Columbine Colorado, 13 were murdered by gunmen. In a gun-free zone in Red Lake Minnesota, 7 were murdered by a gunman. In a gun-free zone in Blacksburg Virginia, 32 were murdered by a gunman. In a church where armed citizens were able to act in their own self defense, only two were murdered by a gunman. Yet you seek, by law, to turn Washington's institutes of higher education into gun-free zones — shooting galleries, where students are required to be helpless, defenseless victims.

I am deeply saddened that you sponsored SB 6304, and again urge you in the strongest polite terms to reconsider your position. Gun-Free Zones are wishful thinking; they totally disregard the cold, bloody facts. Please don't be a party to forcing students and faculty in Washington's colleges and universities to be helpless, defenseless victims, just waiting for the next massacre.
Edited to add:

...Rats! I totally neglected to mention that this law would arguably violate Article I Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution!
 

uncoolperson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
608
Location
Bellingham, ,
imported post

John Hardin wrote:
Here's mine:

Senator McAuliffe:

I am writing you to urge you to reconsider SB 6304, which seeks to give institutes of higher education the ability to define “Gun-Free Zones” enforced by law. I am also writing my representatives to urge that they oppose this bill should it make it as far as the House of Representatives.

It has been made painfully obvious over the last year that declaring a college or university, or shopping mall, or office building, or church, or indeed any location, as a “Gun Free Zone,” where possession of a firearm is prohibited by law, is totally ineffective in preventing acts of violent crime at that location.

Simply put, if someone has already made the decision to commit the crime of murder (possibly as many times as they are able), and has already made the decision to commit suicide at the end of their rampage rather than face arrest, what do they care if they risk arrest by taking firearms to where they intend their mayhem? How will such a law hinder them in any way?

Please consider the stark illustration by Jeanne Assam in Colorado of how effective having a responsible, armed person present is in keeping an attempted massacre from going very far. If she had been disarmed by law, who knows how many people would have been murdered. Dozens?

In a gun-free zone in Columbine Colorado, 13 were murdered by gunmen. In a gun-free zone in Red Lake Minnesota, 7 were murdered by a gunman. In a gun-free zone in Blacksburg Virginia, 32 were murdered by a gunman. In a church where armed citizens were able to act in their own self defense, only two were murdered by a gunman. Yet you seek, by law, to turn Washington's institutes of higher education into gun-free zones — shooting galleries, where students are required to be helpless, defenseless victims.

I am deeply saddened that you sponsored SB 6304, and again urge you in the strongest polite terms to reconsider your position. Gun-Free Zones are wishful thinking; they totally disregard the cold, bloody facts. Please don't be a party to forcing students and faculty in Washington's colleges and universities to be helpless, defenseless victims, just waiting for the next massacre.
Edited to add:

...Rats! I totally neglected to mention that this law would arguably violate Article I Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution!
don't you mean "further violate"?
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

Here's what I wrote to the committee:


Senators:

I am writing you to urge you to oppose SB 6304, which seeks to give institutes of higher education the ability to define “Gun-Free Zones”.

It has been made painfully obvious over the last year that declaring a college or university, or shopping mall, or office building, or church, or indeed any location, as a “Gun Free Zone,” where possession of a firearm by any person is prohibited, is totally ineffective in preventing acts of violent crime at that location.

Simply put, if someone has already made the decision to commit the crime of murder (possibly as many times as they are able), and has already made the decision to commit suicide at the end of their rampage rather than face arrest, what do they care if they risk arrest by taking firearms to where they intend their mayhem? How will such a law hinder them in any way?

Please consider the stark illustration by Jeanne Assam in Colorado of how effective having a responsible, armed person present is in keeping an attempted massacre from going very far. If she had been disarmed by law, who knows how many people would have been murdered. Dozens?

In a gun-free zone in Columbine Colorado, 13 were murdered by gunmen. In a gun-free zone in Red Lake Minnesota, 7 were murdered by a gunman. In a gun-free zone in Blacksburg Virginia, 32 were murdered by a gunman. In a church where armed citizens were able to act in their own self defense, only two were murdered by a gunman. Yet this bill seeks to turn Washington's institutes of higher education into gun-free zones — shooting galleries, where students are required to be helpless, defenseless victims.

In addition, Article I Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired”. Declaring that a citizen cannot lawfully bear arms in self defense while on the grounds of a state institution of higher learning is clearly prohibited.

Gun-Free Zones are wishful thinking; they totally disregard the cold, bloody facts. Please don't be a party to forcing students and faculty in Washington's colleges and universities to be helpless, defenseless victims, just waiting for the next massacre.
...for the most part, the same letter I sent to my reps. This time I did mention the constitutionality issue.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

This "feel good" legislation is a waste of time since itonly adds extra charges to criminal prosecution AFTER THE FACT!

Let us not forget that all these "enhancements" are usually plea-bargained away or if not, the Judge fails to apply them to the max. End result is they don't do a damn thing but waste time better spent on fixing bridges and rusty ferry boats.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

Here's one that went to the author of the bill: [size=
[quote]Dear Sen. Kohl-Welles:
I am writing in opposition to SB 6304, a bill you are sponsoring, that would delegate authority for firearms regulation -- an authority that Washington citizens long ago determined should rest solely with the State Legislature -- to un-elected college and university officials. As the author of "Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities," a book recommended by police and attorneys that is now in its 11th year, any delegation of this important regulatory power, especially to authorities who have not been subject to a public election, is a perilous step toward erosion of state preemption.

This legislation, I am certain, is in response to the massacre at Virginia Tech last April. While it is a natural reaction to want to prevent an outrage like that from happening in the Evergreen State, I can state unequivocally that thousands of Washington residents are opposed to the concept of allowing state college and university officials expanded authority to regulate firearms on their campuses, which appears to erode and delegate legislative authority established under RCW 9.41.290

Let's examine the dilemma from a different perspective. The Virginia Tech massacre was able to happen because that campus is a "gun-free zone" where even legally-licensed, law-abiding firearms owners -- be they students or teachers -- were prevented from defending themselves and others because they were disarmed by Virginia Tech rules.

Contrast that event with what occurred late last year at the New Life Center in Colorado Springs, CO. An armed private citizen, Jeanne Assam, acting in a voluntary capacity as a church security officer, shot a gunman before he was able to enter the church sanctuary and open fire. Ms. Assam was not a police officer, nor did she have any special authority under Colorado statute. She was merely a private citizen.

I encourage you to amend this legislation with an ironclad exemption for legally-armed citizens licensed under RCW 9.41.070, under the provisions of RCW 9.41.300(2)(b)(i)

Quite frankly, as an author with some recognized expertise on Washington state firearms laws, I have genuine concerns that permitting college and universities the authority to ban outright all firearms, including those in possession of legally-licensed students and faculty, might not pass muster under Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State constitution.

I would be delighted to discuss this with you or a member of your staff.

[/quote]][/size]
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

John Hardin wrote:
just_a_car wrote:
XD45PlusP wrote:
Is anyone going to the committee hearing this thursday? Is anyone going to testify?
I can't, I have class at the UW at 10:30am.
That's a shame. Having a student who regularly carries testify would be great.

*sigh* I know, but that means that I'd be "outted" and would possibly have to deal with the fact that UW student code of conduct contradicts itself and thus, allows me to carry legally and without fear of repurcussion. Honestly, I'd like to not point out that contradiction to the administration until I'm graduated so I don't risk all the effort I've put into my degree which I should have by the end of August.

If it means that much, though, I can conceivably skip that class since the lectures notes are online (even though the lectures he gives on them are much more in-depth than the notes) and my next class isn't until 1:30pm. So, as long as I can get back to the UW by then, I'd be willing to consider going.
 
Top