• 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.

Proposed Bill In The Legislature

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
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
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
imported post

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

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
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 shit.

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
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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?
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Elect6ed officials should loose their qualified immunity for enacting any pre empted legislation or failing to remove pre empted legislation when notified.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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.
 

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
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
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
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?
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
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_topic.php?id=18768&forum_id=55&jump_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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
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
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
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.
 

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top