• 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.

HB 2709 - Good News, mostly

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
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.



[align=left]http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2709&year=2009[/align]


[align=left]http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2709.pdf[/align]


[align=left];)Bat[/align]
 

dj_fatstyles

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
53
Location
renton, ,
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.




[align=left]http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2709&year=2009[/align]



[align=left]http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2709.pdf[/align]



[align=left];)Bat[/align]
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/Summary.aspx?bill=1604&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.
 

G20-IWB24/7

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
886
Location
Tacoma, WA, ,

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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.




[align=left]http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2709&year=2009[/align]



[align=left]http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2709.pdf[/align]



[align=left];)Bat[/align]
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/Summary.aspx?bill=1604&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
 

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_25&products_id=42&osCsid=ptq4sf8b6k0a4rlg85nhcs07a5
They are still describing the firearm, not the ammunition.
 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
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/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_25&products_id=42&osCsid=ptq4sf8b6k0a4rlg85nhcs07a5
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
 

kwiebe

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Tacoma, Washington, United States
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.
 
Top