I'd like to ask for support.

imported post

I will be sending out some letters to legislators on sunday, and it would greatly help if some of you fellas who were interested in helping, would write some letters in support of a new bill.

I am talking about lowering the age requirement of applying for a CPL to 18.

http://frpwa.com/?page_id=101 <<<< This is the link.

And if you are interested in an "Arms" definition bill too;

http://frpwa.com/?page_id=14

I'd appreciate any support!

imported post

Young adult women in this age group especially are among the most attractive and vulnerable of targets

Click to expand...

Change this sentence 'most attractive' is an opinion and really not relavent to what you are trying to achieve.

RCW 9.41.240 is amended to read as follows:

Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:

(1) In the person’s place of abode;

(2) At the person’s fixed place of business; or

(3) On real property under his or her control; or

(4) While lawfully carrying a pistol under RCW 9.41.070

Click to expand...

If the legal age becomes 18 number (4) wouldn't be necessary unless you are still saying they shouldn't open carry?

imported post

I didn't write that, but we are trying to get at least concealed carry for now. All carry would be a big thing. One step at a time. I'll be at the meet today.

imported post

I'm writing today also about these bills, which are both aimed at countering the AWB as well as making 18 to 20 year olds safer. Yes it only covers CPL carry, but it's a fact of life that if you go for too much you typically get nothing. Conditions are good for getting this issue moving right now and over the short term I'm more interested in saving lives than being principled.

I'm attachinga legislative email list. It's broken up into Republican sections and the whole House and Senate sections, depending on your letter. Even if they're justmass bcc'd, a bunch of letters about the CPL age requirement in their inboxes Monday morning might get some results.

imported post

As written, the bill to lower the age for a CPL would result in Washington losing reciprocity with most states. I think you would be better off to come up with a "restricted" CPL or some sort of 2-class licensing system so that other states can honor a Class A CPL (21+) but not a Class B CPL (18-21).

You might also want to look at other states for models, although I know of none that have a 2-level system of licensing. Texas, I believe, allows 18-year-olds to be licensed only if they are members of the military or law enforcement.

The arms definition bill looks good. I would hope there is a companion bill that expands preemption to all arms, so the laws are the same statewide. Have you researched what happens if the people vote down an amendment? Seems at that point we're screwed . . .

As far as introducing anything this session, if a bill hasn't yet been dropped there is almost zero chance it will go anywhere this session. It could be introduced, but would end up being dead at the end of session. I'll suggest your efforts would be better spent researching and carefully crafting the best piece of legislation you can write and finding a democrat to sponsor the bill if you don't have one. Introduce it in next years' long session when it has a better chance.

Charles

imported post

I haven't researched the laws of all the states we have reciprocity with, but as I recall some like Washingtondon't allow reciprocity with states that allow permits to those under 21, some simply don't allow those under 21 to use them. I've thought about a two-tiered license system, but that would really complicate the issue and we don't know if the other states it would apply in would even go for that.

I certainly have no wish to undermine reciprocity, after all I'm the guy who went to the capitol and rooted out the roadblock that killed it the first year so it could be enacted the next year. But the number of licenced travelers who would be affected is small compared to the number of young adults in this state who have nopossibility of self-protection right now, so I'd have to consider thatthe bigger priority.

Its chances of getting enacted this year doesn't concern me much either, if you always wait for the perfect year you'll never getanything done. Besides which, surprises happen. There's plenty of time for this issue to take on a life of its own if it gets dropped soon. And if not, the issue will be in the limelight for next year, and we'll have time to do all the detailed research.

Also from the standpoint of current issues,one of its purposes is tohelp slow down the AWB bill too. Kline and Ceasefire are touting the name of Aaron Sullivan and how their AWB would have saved him (even though a single-shot rifle would have done the same job.) We are responding with a bill that really could save the next Aaron, by enabling his right to protection rather than eliminating it.

On the "Arms" bill, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by expanding preemption to cover all arms. All the arms defined in the bill would be constitutionally protected all over the state, so that should cover it. If it gets voted down, nothing changes, things just stay the same as they are now, with the exception that after the attention this has gotten,Adam Kline and Ceasefire can't use their "legitimate sporting purposes" argument with very much weight anymore. My hope is also that once introduced, the "Arms" bill idea will take off nationwide and take care of the AWB threat for good.

I'm still writing legislators about both issues today, encourage others to do so too, especially on the CPL age issue.

imported post

Charles Paul Lincoln wrote:

As written, the bill to lower the age for a CPL would result in Washington losing reciprocity with most states. I think you would be better off to come up with a "restricted" CPL or some sort of 2-class licensing system so that other states can honor a Class A CPL (21+) but not a Class B CPL (18-21).

Click to expand...

But it wouldn't really change anything if that states laws already restrict those under 21. If you are 18 and carrying there you would be breaking their law? Or am I missing something?

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

But it wouldn't really change anything if that states laws already restrict those under 21. If you are 18 and carrying there you would be breaking their law? Or am I missing something?

Click to expand...

Most states that honor CPLs from other states do so because the standards in the reciprocal state are equal to or greater than the state in question. That seems to be the most common method of granting reciprocity although some states honor any permit from any other state -- such as Idaho. The vast majority of states use 21 as the minimum age to carry concealed.

Washington does not honor the Texas CPL partially because it can be issued to those under 21. What would likely happen if the Washington permit allowed 18-year-olds to carry is that we would lose reciprocity with some other states. If the legislation also included acceptance of any state's resident CPL, we would likely gain some reciprocal states.

Charles

imported post

Charles Paul Lincoln wrote:

Washington does not honor the Texas CPL partially because it can be issued to those under 21. What would likely happen if the Washington permit allowed 18-year-olds to carry is that we would lose reciprocity with some other states. If the legislation also included acceptance of any state's resident CPL, we would likely gain some reciprocal states.

Charles

Click to expand...

I guess I am too logical, I would think that you would accept the CPL because we have laws against someone under21 to carrying. That we should be able to accept all CPL's with the understanding that they have to abide by our existing state laws. For example I can travel to California with my gun but have to leave my 15 round magazines at home and can't openly carry it loaded in most areas I would visit.

I have wrote my representative about becoming a Shall accept state. Got a reply I would hear back, but with all the fiasco going on right now I understand the delay of not getting back.