Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: HB 2709 - Good News, mostly

  1. #1
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    Curious what everyone thinks of HOUSE BILL 2709, i personally am enthusiastic about it, as long as it does not interfere with incorporation.

    I do feel they should remove "d" from Section 4, 1 (d) "A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device." -- Other than that i think it is well written. Also, should rework some R.C.W. to finally allow usage of allcovered accessories and firearms.

    Please let me know your thoughts.









    Bat
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    renton, ,
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    Batousaii wrote:
    Curious what everyone thinks of HOUSE BILL 2709, i personally am enthusiastic about it, as long as it does not interfere with incorporation.

    I do feel they should remove "d" from Section 4, 1 (d) "A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device." -- Other than that i think it is well written. Also, should rework some R.C.W. to finally allow usage of allcovered accessories and firearms.

    Please let me know your thoughts.












    Bat
    agreed, get rid of section 4, 1 (d). butthis billis a step in the right direction i hope it passes. along with HB1604

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&year=2009

    im writing all the representitves (144 total that i could find)for their support on 1604. if anyone needs their email addresses i can post them up here if need be.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    Batousaii wrote:
    I do feel they should remove "d" from Section 4, 1 (d) "A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device." --
    So I guess the usage of this ammunition in a 10mm firearm would be prohibited. http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cat...4rlg85nhcs07a5

  4. #4
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    dj_fatstyles wrote:
    Batousaii wrote:
    Curious what everyone thinks of HOUSE BILL 2709, i personally am enthusiastic about it, as long as it does not interfere with incorporation.

    I do feel they should remove "d" from Section 4, 1 (d) "A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device." -- Other than that i think it is well written. Also, should rework some R.C.W. to finally allow usage of allcovered accessories and firearms.

    Please let me know your thoughts.












    Bat
    agreed, get rid of section 4, 1 (d). butthis billis a step in the right direction i hope it passes. along with HB1604

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&year=2009

    im writing all the representitves (144 total that i could find)for their support on 1604. if anyone needs their email addresses i can post them up here if need be.
    Done

    alexander.gary@leg.wa.gov; anderson.glenn@leg.wa.gov; angel.jan@leg.wa.gov; appleton.sherry@leg.wa.gov; armstrong.mike@leg.wa.gov; bailey.barbara@leg.wa.gov; becker.randi@leg.wa.gov; benton.don@leg.wa.gov; berkey.jean@leg.wa.gov; blake.brian@leg.wa.gov; brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov; brown.lisa@leg.wa.gov; campbell.tom@leg.wa.gov; carlyle.reuven@leg.wa.gov; carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov; chandler.bruce@leg.wa.gov; chase.maralyn@leg.wa.gov; chopp.frank@leg.wa.gov; clibborn.judy@leg.wa.gov; cody.eileen@leg.wa.gov; condotta.cary@leg.wa.gov; conway.steve@leg.wa.gov; crouse.larry@leg.wa.gov; dammeier.bruce@leg.wa.gov; darneille.j@leg.wa.gov; debolt.richard@leg.wa.gov; delvin.jerome@leg.wa.gov; dickerson.marylou@leg.wa.gov; driscoll.john@leg.wa.gov; dunshee.hans@leg.wa.gov; eddy.deborah@leg.wa.gov; eide.tracey@leg.wa.gov; ericks.mark@leg.wa.gov; ericksen.doug@leg.wa.gov; wimpan.susan@leg.wa.gov; fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov; finn.fred@leg.wa.gov; flannigan.dennis@leg.wa.gov; franklin.rosa@leg.wa.gov; fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov; goodman.roger@leg.wa.gov; green.tami@leg.wa.gov; haigh.kathy@leg.wa.gov; haler.larry@leg.wa.gov; hargrove.jim@leg.wa.gov; hasegawa.bob@leg.wa.gov; hatfield.brian@leg.wa.gov; haugen.marymargaret@leg.wa.gov; herrera.jaime@leg.wa.gov; hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov; hinkle.bill@leg.wa.gov; hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov; holmquist.janea@leg.wa.gov; honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov; hope.mike@leg.wa.gov; hunt.sam@leg.wa.gov; hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov; hurst.christopher@leg.wa.gov; jacks.jim@leg.wa.gov; jacobsen.ken@leg.wa.gov; jarrett.fred@leg.wa.gov; johnson.norm@leg.wa.gov; kagi.ruth@leg.wa.gov; kastama.jim@leg.wa.gov; kauffman.claudia@leg.wa.gov; keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov; kelley.troy@leg.wa.gov; kenney.phyllis@leg.wa.gov; kessler.lynn@leg.wa.gov; kilmer.derek@leg.wa.gov; king.curtis@leg.wa.gov; kirby.steve@leg.wa.gov; kline.adam@leg.wa.gov; klippert.brad@leg.wa.gov; kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov; kretz.joel@leg.wa.gov; kristiansen.dan@leg.wa.gov; liias.marko@leg.wa.gov; linville.kelli@leg.wa.gov; marr.chris@leg.wa.gov; maxwell.marcie@leg.wa.gov; mcauliffe.rosemary@leg.wa.gov; mccaslin.bob@leg.wa.gov; mccoy.john@leg.wa.gov; mccune.jim@leg.wa.gov; mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov; miloscia.mark@leg.wa.gov; moeller.jim@leg.wa.gov; morrell.dawn@leg.wa.gov; morris.jeff@leg.wa.gov; morton.bob@leg.wa.gov; murray.edward@leg.wa.gov; nealey.terry@leg.wa.gov; nelson.sharon@leg.wa.gov; obrien.al@leg.wa.gov; oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov; orcutt.ed@leg.wa.gov; ormsby.timm@leg.wa.gov; orwall.tina@leg.wa.gov; parker.kevin@leg.wa.gov; parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov; pearson.kirk@leg.wa.gov; pedersen.jamie@leg.wa.gov; pettigrew.eric@leg.wa.gov; pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov; prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov; pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov; priest.skip@leg.wa.gov; probst.tim@leg.wa.gov; quall.dave@leg.wa.gov; ranker.kevin@leg.wa.gov; regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov; roach.dan@leg.wa.gov; roach.pam@leg.wa.gov; roberts.maryhelen@leg.wa.gov; rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov; rodne.jay@leg.wa.gov; rolfes.christine@leg.wa.gov; ross.charles@leg.wa.gov; santos.sharontomiko@leg.wa.gov; schmick.joe@leg.wa.gov; schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov; seaquist.larry@leg.wa.gov; sells.mike@leg.wa.gov; shea.matt@leg.wa.gov; sheldon.timothy@leg.wa.gov; shin.paull@leg.wa.gov; short.shelly@leg.wa.go; simpson.geoff@leg.wa.gov; smith.norma@leg.wa.gov; springer.larry@leg.wa.gov; stevens.val@leg.wa.gov; sullivan.pat@leg.wa.gov; swecker.dan@leg.wa.gov; takko.dean@leg.wa.gov; taylor.david@leg.wa.gov; tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov; upthegrove.dave@leg.wa.gov; vandewege.kevin@leg.wa.gov; wallace.deb@leg.wa.gov; walsh.maureen@leg.wa.gov; warnick.judy@leg.wa.gov; white.scott@leg.wa.gov; williams.brendan@leg.wa.gov; wood.alex@leg.wa.gov; zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov

  5. #5
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    Batousaii wrote:
    I do feel they should remove "d" from Section 4, 1 (d) "A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device." --
    So I guess the usage of this ammunition in a 10mm firearm would be prohibited. http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cat...4rlg85nhcs07a5
    They are still describing the firearm, not the ammunition.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    swatspyder wrote:
    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    Batousaii wrote:
    I do feel they should remove "d" from Section 4, 1 (d) "A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device." --
    So I guess the usage of this ammunition in a 10mm firearm would be prohibited. http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cat...4rlg85nhcs07a5
    They are still describing the firearm, not the ammunition.
    Correct, it regulates the arm, not the ammo, but a billos this natureshould have some teeth and removing (d) would allow the State itself to regulate any weapon that falls under this description, totally blocking federal impedance.

    -------- My Letter to all the above adresses ------------

    Dear Sirs and Ma`ams,

    - I am writing to you in support of House Bill 2709. I feel it is a prudent move as a state to ensure that the federal government is not regulating our freedoms. I would like to present one observation, and request consideration for a change.

    Consider removal of Section 4 (1) (d) “A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.” … My primary reason is simple. If we are making an effort to keep the federal government from controlling our manufacture, sale, distribution, use and regulation of firearms (small arms), then do so with the strength of a fully encompassing bill. The afore mentioned subsections (a), (b), (c) are obviously are describing what can be classified as “artillery and explosives” (heavy guns) commonly known by ATF as a “destructive device”. I would agree that stopping federal regulation of a “destructive device” would be difficult, as the munitions of such also fall under the class of “explosive” requiring separate licensing and storage requirements from the arm itself.. However (d), describes the mechanics of a shoulder fired firearm, commonly known as a “full automatics”. The mechanical differences between a semi-automatic and full automatic is very minimal, and the ammunition is the same. Also, size, shape, structure, manufacture, method of hold, carry and storage also the same between semi and full, and the ultimate capabilities nearly identical.



    My reason for this request is simply, the Second Amendment is not about hunting and sporting purposes. It was held true then, as it should be now, that all able bodied citizens, of able mind and body, were natural parts of the nations defense, and should by default be able to keep and bear arms of an equivalent nature as the era’s armed forces. It had been this way all through American history until the 1968 Gun Control Act that this was enacted, and the rights of the people to keep and bear arms began to erode at an astounding pace. The 1968-GCA is part of a commerce enforcement, and as such, has no right being regulated inside the confines of our free state.



    In the name of our historical right, as drafted for us by our founding fathers, I support this bill, and request subsection (d) of 4-1 be removed in order to give this bill it’s full strength. Please restore the rights of the people.



    Thank you Kindly, with respect,

    *Citizen
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  7. #7
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    Thanks for sharing the link...I didn't know there was an effort underway in WA regarding this, I'm glad to hear it.

    RE the objections to the clause excluding automatic weapons: Just curious, is the opposition expressed in this thread on principle? I'm wondering how big of a deal it is to keep the clause in there, at least for now.

    There's another thread about getting a bill going that would remove the CC restriction for 18-20-year-olds and the thought there is to start with CC then get OC later (i.e., not ask for too much at one time).

    I kind of agree with this tactic - when you think about it, it's how the opposition has eroded our freedoms over time so it only makes sense to turn the tables.

Posting Permissions

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