Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Proposed Bill In The Legislature

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    I am looking for input on a proposed Bill in the legislature in 2009 that imposes a certain penalty on municipalities, cities, and governments for violating state preemption laws, specifically 9.41.290 & 9.41.300

    After speaking with a prominent Senator last night who is Pro-Gun and on our side, I am not feeling too good about this years legislative session, and we need to be proactive. Guys, and gals, we could lose Preemption all together if we dont ACT NOW

    Part of this is going to hearings, and writing legislators, but the other is being proactive and writing our own bills to counteract bills that would be against our rights. And for that we need sponsors, and we need enough people to contact their legislators.

    And

    We need gun owners to put the pressure on the gun clubs, WAC, SAF, andCCRKBA to put some pressure on legislators to sponsor these bills.

    Last year when there was a bill

    "Restricting possession of weapons at institutions of higher education"

    there was a bill that was introduced that was the opposite,

    "Prohibiting institutions of higher education from adopting rules concerning the possession of firearms."

    So, I know you have some suggestions......... Let's hear em.

    XD

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    The convoluted law concerning carry on K-12 grounds needs to be fixed. That would be a good counter.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    The convoluted law concerning carry on K-12 grounds needs to be fixed. That would be a good counter.
    I agree but Shin has, unfortunately, already said as long as he is the chaiperson of the education commitee there will not be guns allowed at schools.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    This has nothing to do with K-12, this is a bill that would make a person who is affected by "Local Laws" that are supposedly Pre-empted by RCW 9.41.290 have some kind of recourse, other than just talking about it on this website!

    Like the libraries, parks, etc... that you guys keep writing about, and trying to send letters, email etc... to the local governments and if they care they change it as slowly as possible, and if they don't care they don't do jack ****.

    This Bill would give recourse to individuals affected by these Preempted rules, laws etc....

    C'mon guys, I know you have some suggestions. What should the penalties be?

    My first suggestion for this Bill would be the right to sue, and that all attorney fees be paid by the local gov/cities/municipalities, and the next step would be penalties of the monetary kind.

    But what amounts? 100$ a day? 50? 25? 1000?

    How bout some ideas?

    XD



  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Once properly notified, no other legislative business may be conducted until the offending code is amended or removed.

    ETA: Think about the repercussions of this. Can't run through all of their pet get-me-reelected pork until they face up to the damage they did last session. What if this applied in WA DC after Heller?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Elect6ed officials should loose their qualified immunity for enacting any pre empted legislation or failing to remove pre empted legislation when notified.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Have them lose the immunity after having the issue debated and resolved in a mandatory open session with all the world watching. Including the important folks trying to get "their" bills enacted and wondering why Rep. Dumbbutt screwed this up so bad that its now holding up real work.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Elect6ed officials should loose their qualified immunity for enacting any pre empted legislation or failing to remove pre empted legislation when notified.
    42 USC 1983

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    link to proposal?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    This has nothing to do with K-12, this is a bill that would make a person who is affected by "Local Laws" that are supposedly Pre-empted by RCW 9.41.290 have some kind of recourse, other than just talking about it on this website!

    Like the libraries, parks, etc... that you guys keep writing about, and trying to send letters, email etc... to the local governments and if they care they change it as slowly as possible, and if they don't care they don't do jack @#$%.

    This Bill would give recourse to individuals affected by these Preempted rules, laws etc....

    C'mon guys, I know you have some suggestions. What should the penalties be?

    My first suggestion for this Bill would be the right to sue, and that all attorney fees be paid by the local gov/cities/municipalities, and the next step would be penalties of the monetary kind.

    But what amounts? 100$ a day? 50? 25? 1000?

    How bout some ideas?

    XD

    We already have the right to sue. At the moment the only monetary penalties would be for attorney fees. I think their should be a punitive damages clause that upon winning the courts shall award the plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of 2 1/2 times their daily pay. If plaintiff is not employed then punitive damages shall be $100 per day.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Is there a draft of this bill, or is it just in the conceptual stage? If you have access to a draft, could you please post it here?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    Is there a draft of this bill, or is it just in the conceptual stage? If you have access to a draft, could you please post it here?
    Nothing drafted at this time.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    Is there a draft of this bill, or is it just in the conceptual stage? If you have access to a draft, could you please post it here?
    Nothing drafted at this time.
    Joe --- I would suggest that before we go into panic mode we monitor the discussion in the legislature and wait until they have it in writing. Once they do that we can cite specifics and deluge them with objections. I think that would be much more effective thangetting into some nebulous discussion about concepts. Agree?



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    Is there a draft of this bill, or is it just in the conceptual stage? If you have access to a draft, could you please post it here?
    Nothing drafted at this time.
    Joe --- I would suggest that before we go into panic mode we monitor the discussion in the legislature and wait until they have it in writing. Once they do that we can cite specifics and deluge them with objections. I think that would be much more effective thangetting into some nebulous discussion about concepts. Agree?

    There is only a couple of gun related bills that are active and they died in committee last year. There is still a chance for them to come to life again this year but I don't think the legislatures are going to do anything except maybe strengthen preemption themselves. Of course they may do nothing until the inevitable court battle with Seattle is complete.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    Is there a draft of this bill, or is it just in the conceptual stage? If you have access to a draft, could you please post it here?
    Nothing drafted at this time.
    Joe --- I would suggest that before we go into panic mode we monitor the discussion in the legislature and wait until they have it in writing. Once they do that we can cite specifics and deluge them with objections. I think that would be much more effective thangetting into some nebulous discussion about concepts. Agree?

    There is only a couple of gun related bills that are active and they died in committee last year. There is still a chance for them to come to life again this year but I don't think the legislatures are going to do anything except maybe strengthen preemption themselves. Of course they may do nothing until the inevitable court battle with Seattle is complete.
    Just this morning Gene Beasley posted a very interesting hypothesis which was basically that Seattle, Port of Seattle and Federal Way might be in some kind of conspiracy (my wording) about the whole issue of preemption. See his post in the thread:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...314030#p314030

    Maybe "conspiracy" is a bit strong in interpretation of what he says, but he does say there is evidence they have been collaborating in some way. He offers some compelling evidence that this could be the case. Whichever is true I think there are some disturbing signs that this is bigger than just Seattle/Nickels. And if it is, we are going to need a HUGE war chest and some contributors with very deep pockets, assuming the Seattle proposal passes. And we're going to have to mount a very aggressive fund-raising campaign and ally ourselves with some of the best organizations to help our cause, beginning with NRA and CRKBA and on down the line from there. I'm a complete novice at this kind of stuff but I have the time to put into it. I just don't know where to start.

    Hmmmmm... "Battle with Seattle" Catchy phrase that might come in handy.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    I am looking for input on a proposed Bill in the legislature in 2009 that imposes a certain penalty on municipalities, cities, and governments for violating state preemption laws, specifically 9.41.290 & 9.41.300
    Isn't that what 9.41.810 does?

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.810

    If not, what is it for?

    Bruce

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    bcp wrote:
    XD45PlusP wrote:
    I am looking for input on a proposed Bill in the legislature in 2009 that imposes a certain penalty on municipalities, cities, and governments for violating state preemption laws, specifically 9.41.290 & 9.41.300
    Isn't that what 9.41.810 does?

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.810

    If not, what is it for?

    Bruce
    Who would enforce it on a municipality and on whom in the municipality would it get enforced? That is truly the question.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    Is there a draft of this bill, or is it just in the conceptual stage? If you have access to a draft, could you please post it here?
    This is a draft, that I as a WA State Citizen am going to propose to a Rep for a Bill in the Legislature, that's why I would like to have some help with drafting it from the OCDO community in WA

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    Is there a draft of this bill, or is it just in the conceptual stage? If you have access to a draft, could you please post it here?
    This is a draft, that I as a WA State Citizen am going to propose to a Rep for a Bill in the Legislature, that's why I would like to have some help with drafting it from the OCDO community in WA
    Okay, let's get started. First, do you have some bullet items (no pun intended) for a framework? If we have some major points to build on we can fill in the details as we go along. But remember this: it has to be saleable to the politicians, so it can't be too extreme. We are seriously in the minority, so it has to be something that can at least get past the committee stage. It'll be a tough road, so let's write something that will sell.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Who would enforce it on a municipality and on whom in the municipality would it get enforced? That is truly the question.
    This was the conclusion that I came to when trying to wrap my head around an improved 290. Since the AG is not like the US Justice Department, the big question is how would the charges be brought and who would bring them.

    Once I thought that the language was right (joeroket - check your PM history from October), the AG released his opinion that pretty much resolved all of those issues. At this point I back-burnered all thought of working on 290.

    I definitely want to be involved in anything to do with this. I will make sure I watch this thread.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    I remember the PM's we exchanged about this very well Gene. You can still count me in.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Spokane, WA, ,
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    You have my full support with this. I will contribute and follow his thread as well, especially considering the training our officers are receiving because of the Spokane Trainng Bulletin.

    "NOTE: Citizens have recently contacted the City to argue that they can carry guns
    in city parks, because Washington Law does not automatically ban guns carried
    under “circumstances that warrant concern for the safety of others”. Regardless
    of the carrier’s lack of intent to intimidate others, the carrier can be ordered to
    immediately remove the gun from the park and/or face criminal charges, if the
    circumstances warrant. R.C.W.9.41.270 and SMC 10.11.048A."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    surfj9009 wrote:
    You have my full support with this. I will contribute and follow his thread as well, especially considering the training our officers are receiving because of the Spokane Trainng Bulletin.

    "NOTE: Citizens have recently contacted the City to argue that they can carry guns
    in city parks, because Washington Law does not automatically ban guns carried
    under “circumstances that warrant concern for the safety of others”. Regardless
    of the carrier’s lack of intent to intimidate others, the carrier can be ordered to
    immediately remove the gun from the park and/or face criminal charges, if the
    circumstances warrant. R.C.W.9.41.270 and SMC 10.11.048A."
    Absolutely. We need to make sure that it gets changed so there is no way anyone could misunderstand it.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    surfj9009 wrote:
    You have my full support with this. I will contribute and follow his thread as well, especially considering the training our officers are receiving because of the Spokane Trainng Bulletin.

    "NOTE: Citizens have recently contacted the City to argue that they can carry guns
    in city parks, because Washington Law does not automatically ban guns carried
    under “circumstances that warrant concern for the safety of others”. Regardless
    of the carrier’s lack of intent to intimidate others, the carrier can be ordered to
    immediately remove the gun from the park and/or face criminal charges, if the
    circumstances warrant. R.C.W.9.41.270 and SMC 10.11.048A."
    Absolutely. We need to make sure that it gets changed so there is no way anyone could misunderstand it.
    I'm not having any problem understanding this, but I can see how it might be a bit confusing. The issue here seems to revolve around the old discussion of "causes alarm" vs. "warrants alarm" as it's stated in Section 270. I agree that the language could be clarified with the emphasis on intent and in defining what actions "cause alarm" for the safety of others.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    surfj9009 wrote:
    You have my full support with this. I will contribute and follow his thread as well, especially considering the training our officers are receiving because of the Spokane Trainng Bulletin.

    "NOTE: Citizens have recently contacted the City to argue that they can carry guns
    in city parks, because Washington Law does not automatically ban guns carried
    under “circumstances that warrant concern for the safety of others”. Regardless
    of the carrier’s lack of intent to intimidate others, the carrier can be ordered to
    immediately remove the gun from the park and/or face criminal charges, if the
    circumstances warrant. R.C.W.9.41.270 and SMC 10.11.048A."
    Absolutely. We need to make sure that it gets changed so there is no way anyone could misunderstand it.
    I'm not having any problem understanding this, but I can see how it might be a bit confusing. The issue here seems to revolve around the old discussion of "causes alarm" vs. "warrants alarm" as it's stated in Section 270. I agree that the language could be clarified with the emphasis on intent and in defining what actions "cause alarm" for the safety of others.
    That is exactly what the issue is. The cities and officers are left to decide for themselves what "warrants alarm for the safety of others." That is something that should not be left open to as broad of interpretation as it is now.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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