Assault Weapons Ban Reintroduced

gogodawgs · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6396&year=2009

Time to call your legislator's and tell them to vote no! Tell them to focus on the damn budget and not sneaky ways to limit the rights of the people!

Just Us · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

With 95% of the attendance against it last time, they didn't get the hint!

They forgot to put Pam Roach as Con and mention she was on the committee or board.

just_a_car · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

In case anyone doesn't have their legislators' contact info handy:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx

PoppaGary · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

And the bill still has the language regarding the Sheriff inspecting the storage of the "AW"! So much for Kline's word that he would take it out!

Aren't there ANY political bodies that are LISTENING to andworking FOR us?

:cuss:

Gary

Moose51 · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Mistakenly, I just did a topic on this too, didn't see your post about it already, gogodawgs, I apologize about that. I just mass e-mailed all the representatives/senators in WA, I'll post the responses ASAP

Just Us · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

PoppaGary wrote:

And the bill still has the language regarding the Sheriff inspecting the storage of the "AW"! So much for Kline's word that he would take it out!

Aren't there ANY political bodies that are LISTENING to andworking FOR us?

:cuss:

Gary

Pam Roach and a couple in the 2nd District.

SayWhat · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Maybe we should send all of our reps a copy of "From my cold dead fingers".

Of course expecting them to read a 200 page book is out of the question since they don't read our letters, emails or take our phone calls.

Moose51 · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Just got this from Senator Rosa Franklin:

"Thank you for writing.

I do not intend to support SB 6396. While there are problems with these weapons getting into the wrong hands, I believe the bill needs more work and an understanding about who is getting these weapons and where they are coming from.

Thank you.

Senator Franklin"

Now we'll what everybody else says

Bill Starks · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Moose51 wrote:

Just got this from Senator Rosa Franklin:

"Thank you for writing.

I do not intend to support SB 6396. While there are problems with these weapons getting into the wrong hands, I believe the bill needs more work and an understanding about who is getting these weapons and where they are coming from.

Thank you.

Senator Franklin"

Now we'll what everybody else says

That was the response I got from her on the first introduction

Moose51 · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

Moose51 wrote:

Just got this from Senator Rosa Franklin:

"Thank you for writing.

I do not intend to support SB 6396. While there are problems with these weapons getting into the wrong hands, I believe the bill needs more work and an understanding about who is getting these weapons and where they are coming from.

Thank you.

Senator Franklin"

Now we'll what everybody else says

Click to expand...

That was the response I got from her on the first introduction

To quote H. Simpson:

D'OH :banghead:

Thank you for the warning M1Gunr

Bersa.380 · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Alright ... I am a little slow when it comes to this political crap !

I just left the Washington State Legislature Website and saw as of March 15, 2010 the following statement:
"By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status."

Does that mean it's in affect or not ? If it's in affect does this mean I am a felon because one of the pistols I own holds 14 rounds in it's clip (original bill considers that an assault weapon) ?

tannerwaterbury · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Well here was the letter I sent to my Senator and Representatives (All Dems BTW)

SUBJECT: Do not vote yes!
MESSAGE: As one of your constituents in the City of Kelso, I am demanding that you vote against this Bill. Was it not made clear last time when you tried ramming this down our throats that we didn't want this ban? Apparently not. Do not trample on our rights as Americans and Washingtonians to keep and bear arms, that includes so called "Assault Weapons". ALL Weapons have the capability of being used in assault. However, Law abiding Citizens are being punished constantly by Legislatures banning Guns while the criminals who DO use guns in an unlawful manner are still using them as such. I implore you to vote down this bill, and never again agree on anything that tramples our Constitutional Rights. Thank you for your time.

Tanner Waterbury

Batousaii · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Bersa.. No .. if you already own it you can keep it. But it means we would not be able to buy (or sell them). So if you own one, your stuck with it, or sell it via out of state FFL holder. And if you dont own one, then you're outa luck in this state. Now keep in mind, this bill has been introduced and killed several times, and 90% chance it'll meet the same fate this time too... they just never freekin give up.

SayWhat · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

no it's not in affect.. it's been introduced to be voted on.

Bersa.380 · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Batousaii wrote:

Bersa.. No .. if you already own it you can keep it. But it means we would not be able to buy (or sell them). So if you own one, your stuck with it, or sell it via out of state FFL holder. And if you dont own one, then you're outa luck in this state. Now keep in mind, this bill has been introduced and killed several times, and 90% chance it'll meet the same fate this time too... they just never freekin give up.

Thanks for the quick response ... ...

Can you tell me why a bill can be re-introduced if it has been "Shot Down" in the past ?

Just dam curious !

gogodawgs · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Bersa.380 wrote:

Batousaii wrote:

Bersa.. No .. if you already own it you can keep it. But it means we would not be able to buy (or sell them). So if you own one, your stuck with it, or sell it via out of state FFL holder. And if you dont own one, then you're outa luck in this state. Now keep in mind, this bill has been introduced and killed several times, and 90% chance it'll meet the same fate this time too... they just never freekin give up.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick response ... ...

Can you tell me why a bill can be re-introduced if it has been "Shot Down" in the past ?

Just dam curious !

It was simply introduced in committe and not the full Senate. Nothing was voted on in committee, the bill did not have enough votes so nothing happened. However, now that the Senate in full is meeting any bill can be introduced with a simple vote for consideration of the whole senate.

Dave_pro2a · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

:cuss::cuss::cuss

oliticians :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Whitney · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

[align=left]This bill is aimed at those guns that have characteristics that make them more lethal than an ordinary weapon. (NOT my words) I have been assured by my representaives previouslythat this would not make it off the floor and yet here it is again up for debate. Oh yeah and then there is that part of the bill that requires you to allow the sherrif to inspect your "assult weapon". [/align]
This is not the same verbiage as the previous edition. While this is only the Senate Bill Report it has been prepared for use by the senate for deliberation.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6396%20SBA%20JUD%2010.pdf
[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

[align=left]Summary of Bill[/font]: Assault weapon is defined as any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than ten rounds of ammunition and that also possesses any one characteristic on a list. [/align]

[align=left]For shotguns and rifles only: (1) a pistol grip located rear of thetrigger; or (2) a stock, including thumbhole, folding, and telescoping stocks, that allows a specified grip. [/align]

[align=left]For shotguns only: (1) a detachable magazine; or (2) a revolving cylinder.[/align]

[align=left]For pistols only: (1) a shoulder stock of any kind; or (2) a detachable magazine at any location outside the pistol grip. [/align]

[align=left]For any firearm: (1) a barrel shroud; (2) a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; (3) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip for the nontrigger hand; or (4) a conversion kit or combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of any person.[/align]

[align=left]Detachable magazine, barrel shroud, muzzle brake, muzzle compensator, and conversion kitare all defined.[/align]

[align=left]The manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of assault weapons and conversion kits is prohibited. These weapons and conversion kits are declared a public nuisance.[/align]

kchau · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

As a law abiding citizen of the City of Renton, i urge you to vote against this bill. Not only will it punish goodwilled, law abiding people, it will be a burden to us in the long run. Do not trample on our rights as Americans and Washingtonians to keep and bear arms, that includes so called "Assault Weapons". ALL Weapons have the capability of being used in assault. However, Law abiding Citizens are being punished constantly by Legislatures banning Guns while the criminals who DO use guns in an unlawful manner are still using them as such. I implore you to vote down this bill, and never again agree on anything that tramples our Constitutional Rights.

Essentially, this bill will not stop ill-intentioned people and criminals from obtaining "assault weapons", it will only inhibit lawful people from defending themselves.

Do gun free zones prevent a criminal from handling a weapon on site? Do places that ban firearms stop criminals from bringing them and hurting people? Entities such as SB6396 will not stop criminals from harming people. Criminals already cannot obtain weapons using a legitimate route. this bill will only prevent the sales of firearms to lawful people, not criminals.

Thank You for your time.

joeroket · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Here is the response from Senator Berkey that I just recieved.

Dear Mr. xxxxx,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding SB 6396, which seeks to establish restrictions on certain types of firearms.

Due to the procedures inherent to the Special Legislative Session, all bills are reintroduced at the status they held before the end of the regular Legislative Session. As a result SB 6396 was re-introduced, but this does not mean that it will be voted on. From my understanding the bill has not been passed out of committee and therefore it will not make it to either the House or the Senate floor for a vote this session.

Nevertheless, safe communities contribute to the quality of life we all value and want our families to enjoy. Therefore, I place a high priority on effective crime control. That includes better treatment for people with mental health or drug problems to help prevent crime, and better enforcement of existing laws.

As an example I believe rather than writing additional laws that restrict gun ownership-but are not enforced-we need better enforcement laws to ensure public safety.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I value hearing my constituents concerns. Know that I will keep your thoughts in mind when the issue is before us.

Sincerely,

Senator Jean Berkey
38th Legislative District

Assault Weapons Ban Reintroduced

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member