• 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.

Conversation with Mike Carrell

D

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
I just spent the last 30 or so mins on the phone with Mike Carrell (called me after his KOMO spot) we discussed the possibility of Constitutional Carry, amongst a few other issues relating to the Constitution. He is a 2A supporter to the death as well as a CONSTITUTIONAL supporter. (look at his record if you dont believe me) He told me that as long as Republicans take control of the Senate (state senate that is in case anyone isn't following yet) He will become the Judiciary Chair and it would be "a lot more likely that we could get more self defense and personal protection bills passed."

He has also reaffirmed Jim's fears that if Democrats get control he has been promised that the assault weapons ban will come back into play, but he told me that the likelihood of that passing is slim to none, based on the few Democrats he can count on for a vote in the Judiciary Comittee (has to pass comittee first obviously). Not that we should not keep our eyes peeled and be on the lookout, but we DO have someone on our side at least.

Basic moral of the story is that the status quo needs to be changed or we will continue to face even MORE threats to our rights, whther they be 2A or 4A or 5A or taxA....
 
D

Deleted_User

Guest
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
807
roger that. I've got a few things to ponder this election, including initiatives that will end my job.
 
L

Lucky_Dog

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
71
Location
Kenmore
Look at the initiatives and follow the $$.
Who really wins and loses?

The state does need outta this biz. But is either initiative really the way to do it?

YOMV
 
Metalhead47

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
SaintJacque said:
I'm happy with anything that hacks away at this state's power.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

I don't really care if it lowers the price or not, I don't drink all that much. But much as I hate Costco now I'd rather them get the money than the State. What's wrong with Costco spending money to advance their interests in the first place?

No, the initiative's not perfect. Things political rarely are. However it IS an improvement. Besides, I already voted yes icon_mrgreen.gif
 
jt59

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,005
Location
Central South Sound
SB 6396 Assault weapons ban

devildoc5 said:
He will become the Judiciary Chair and it would be "a lot more likely that we could get more self defense and personal protection bills passed."

He has also reaffirmed Jim's fears that if Democrats get control he has been promised that the assault weapons ban will come back into play, but he told me that the likelihood of that passing is slim to none, based on the few Democrats he can count on for a vote in the Judiciary Comittee (has to pass comittee first obviously). Not that we should not keep our eyes peeled and be on the lookout, but we DO have someone on our side at least.
Click to expand...

No guessing here...this bill was was "re-introduced and retained in its present status" in special session March 15 2010.

When a bill is introduced, it automatically has a two year shelf life (and two legislative sessions)....Two of the sponsors (Kohl-wells, and Kline are prime sponsors) both sit on the judiciary committee...typically, the committee chair determines the course of the bill, including moving into public hearing status and then a vote in the committee....Kline is a prime sponsor and is also the current chair of the judiciary committee in the Senate.

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

We need to absolutely pay attention here, in the upcoming session....
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Lucky_Dog said:
Look at the initiatives and follow the $$.
Who really wins and loses?

The state does need outta this biz. But is either initiative really the way to do it?

YOMV
Click to expand...

The initiative process is probably the ONLY way it will get done. Once the state gets all that "free money" they immediately have a pet project to spend it on. The legislators would rather cut off one of their hands that loose control of this cash cow.

For all here that espouse their views that Government is involved in too much of our lives, these initiatives should be "no brainers". The State needs to get totally our of this part of our lives and let the free market prevail. There are far too many States that use the private enterprise approach to liquor sales and their experience is no better or worse than ours. The difference is that private enterprise will have the ability to enter the arena and those of us that have to wait until we take a trip to another state to get our favorite brand will be able to do so at a local store. I don't need the State telling me what brand of Scotch I can't enjoy or if they special order it for me, mark the price up to double what I can pick it up for as I drive through that "other state".

BTW, how many here are Small Business Owners and hire employees? Getting the State out of Workman's Comp will make them far more competive and actually able to hire more employees. My Son is one of those businessmen and he refuses to hire ANYONE because of Washington State L&I costs. If the State is removed from this business he will hire at least two people right away. Kind of his own limited "Jobs Program".

Again, how can anyone here speak out of the left side of their mouth's saying "Less Government" and then let the right side say "But I'm voting against any legislation/Initiative that will do so"? Just asking.
 
D

Deleted_User

Guest
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
807
Bookman said:
Would that be 1100 and 1105?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! After watching what happened to another state, if they pass our company already told us ut's 50-60% layoffs, instantly! If they get alcohol, they'll go for pop, and that'll shut us down. The whole thing is just too sketchy. I'm worried this time around.
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Goose said:
Absolutely! After watching what happened to another state, if they pass our company already told us ut's 50-60% layoffs, instantly! If they get alcohol, they'll go for pop, and that'll shut us down. The whole thing is just too sketchy. I'm worried this time around.
Click to expand...

I would look for work, at least one will pass.
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
gogodawgs said:
I would look for work, at least one will pass.
Click to expand...

I'd wager they both do and then the Courts will have to decide which parts of which take effect.

Something to remember, unless you work in a State Liquor Store or at a State Warehouse, the "New" vendors will still have to buy their product somewhere. Competitive suppliers will be able to survive. Those who lived off the "monopoly" will have to revise their business plans.
 
Metalhead47

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
amlevin said:
The initiative process is probably the ONLY way it will get done. Once the state gets all that "free money" they immediately have a pet project to spend it on. The legislators would rather cut off one of their hands that loose control of this cash cow.

For all here that espouse their views that Government is involved in too much of our lives, these initiatives should be "no brainers". The State needs to get totally our of this part of our lives and let the free market prevail. There are far too many States that use the private enterprise approach to liquor sales and their experience is no better or worse than ours. The difference is that private enterprise will have the ability to enter the arena and those of us that have to wait until we take a trip to another state to get our favorite brand will be able to do so at a local store. I don't need the State telling me what brand of Scotch I can't enjoy or if they special order it for me, mark the price up to double what I can pick it up for as I drive through that "other state".

BTW, how many here are Small Business Owners and hire employees? Getting the State out of Workman's Comp will make them far more competive and actually able to hire more employees. My Son is one of those businessmen and he refuses to hire ANYONE because of Washington State L&I costs. If the State is removed from this business he will hire at least two people right away. Kind of his own limited "Jobs Program".

Again, how can anyone here speak out of the left side of their mouth's saying "Less Government" and then let the right side say "But I'm voting against any legislation/Initiative that will do so"? Just asking.
Click to expand...

And with that, my friend, I think I need to buy you a drink :banana:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top