Representative Ross Hunter wants to take away YOUR right to self-defense!

More info and update from some legislators on this bill

Here is some more responses that I recieved on this last night and this A.M., note the subtle message (my italics/bold) sent from Joe.

From Joe Schmick

Thank you for your message in opposition to HB 2067. It was originally scheduled for a public hearing on April 13th in the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill has been pulled from the agenda.

We will have to wait and see if it indeed stays off the agenda for the remainder of the week.

I have received numerous calls and emails on this topic over the last few days. Not one person has contacted me in support of the bill. I am hearing loud and clear to oppose the bill. I appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely, Joe Schmick
State Representative


From Ed Orcutt (note, my question preceeds his response)...
From: JT59
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:47 PM
To: Orcutt, Rep. Ed
Subject: RE: please vote against this in committee

Ed,

Thank you for responding so quickly. This appeared to me to be less about budget issues being addressed as much as an thinly veiled attack on 2A rights by weakening 9.41.

Is there actually a verifiable number floating around that can be related to the
re-imbursement costs of those that needed to defend themselves that rationalized this bill for the sponsor in the first place?

Please tell me I am incorrect in my suspicious nature but, while the bill got pulled from the hearing tomorrow, unfortunately it now has a shelf life.

I'm curious now, as to how a bill can be introduced on the floor and then debated and/or voted on without any public discourse under the guise of "budget enhancement"

....can they attach this as a ideological policy rider like as is often done at the national level (most recent extension of spending)?


jt

He responded

John,


Bills are introduced on the floor but only to be referred to a committee. The committee chair then determines whether or not to hold a public hearing on a bill.

If no hearing, the bill seldom advances.

But, anyone can offer the language as an amendment to any bill having a title under which it fits.

I did this with a bill I introduced that went nowhere this year. I got it partially approved by amending it onto a bill with a title open to it. It is a win for the taxpayers.


And, yes, any bill introduced in the odd year is eligible to be heard and passed in the even year as well. We’ll do our best to keep this bill from passing.

Ed

Response from Rep. Bruce Dammier

Thanks for the email, John. I received a message indicating that HB 2067 has been removed from the agenda today. This is likely a reaction to the strong opposition to this bill from folks back home.

As for me, you can rest assured that unless this bill is dramatically amended, I will oppose it.

Sincerely,

Bruce


We need to continue to be vigilant on this, and as for Bruce, I am not sure how this bill could ever be amended to make it pallatable!

Get that crap outta here!

Awesome work you guys! If they can't take our 2A and self defense rights away directly, they'll just make them too expensive to exercise. They're always looking for ways, don't let them win!

Excellent work, stay on it!:banana::banana::banana:

Rep Ross hunter just sent me this

As part of our exercise in producing a responsible budget for Washington we’re looking at a lot of options, many of which are unpleasant. We cut $4.4 billion dollars in ongoing programs in Washington in the proposal we made last week, and the impacts will be felt in many, many areas. This is one possibility.



As part of a broader cut in indigent legal defense we considered this cut. We have decided to not advance it any further in our process this year.



Rep. Ross Hunter

Chair, Ways and Means

ross.hunter@leg.wa.gov



Read my blog at http://www.rosshunter.info



Mod C 105
Capitol Campus

Olympia, WA 98504



Bellevue Office: (425) 453-3064 (until January)

Olympia Office: (360) 786-7936 (January – May)

DevinWKuska said:

Rep Ross hunter just sent me this

As part of our exercise in producing a responsible budget for Washington we’re looking at a lot of options, many of which are unpleasant. We cut $4.4 billion dollars in ongoing programs in Washington in the proposal we made last week, and the impacts will be felt in many, many areas. This is one possibility.



As part of a broader cut in indigent legal defense we considered this cut. We have decided to not advance it any further in our process this year.



Rep. Ross Hunter

Chair, Ways and Means

ross.hunter@leg.wa.gov



Read my blog at http://www.rosshunter.info



Mod C 105
Capitol Campus

Olympia, WA 98504



Bellevue Office: (425) 453-3064 (until January)

Olympia Office: (360) 786-7936 (January – May)

Click to expand...

A broader cut in indigent legal defenses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigent


Puleeeeeze:

Doesn't it go....."if you cannot afford one, an attorney (public defender) will be appointed...to you"

What the OMH is he talking about? Does not the current law provided for reimbursment (for agressive prosection), not for the financial supply of a defense.

Sheesh

What Rep. Hunter doesn't recognize is that as long as this provision is in place in law, Prosecutors won't be trying to make examples out of citizens that defend themselves and as such it won't cost the State a "flipping cent".

So let me get this straight the only tort reform would be for those, who were illegally prosecuted by the state?:banghead:

Instead of taking the money out of the general fund, take it out of the prosecuting attorney's budget. Problem solved. :banana:

Well, Rep Hunter answered my email personally. And I must say I truly appreciate that. I hate form responses that are really telling you....my staff read this and desided not to bother me with it...here is a canned response...

Anyway, Rep Hunter did not do that. Thank you sir....and Here is his answer:

Dear Herman,

As part of our exercise in producing a responsible budget for Washington we’re looking at a lot of options, many of which are unpleasant. We cut $4.4 billion dollars in ongoing programs in Washington in the proposal we made last week, and the impacts will be felt in many, many areas. This is one possibility.

As part of a broader cut in indigent legal defense we considered this cut. We have decided to not advance it any further in our process this year.

Rep. Ross Hunter

Chair, Ways and Means

ross.hunter@leg.wa.gov

I suggested he just repeal 9.41 completely if they want to really save some money. Then I thought about it...no that wouldn't be good, 9.41 holds state preemption

hermannr said:

Well, Rep Hunter answered my email personally. And I must say I truly appreciate that. I hate form responses that are really telling you....my staff read this and desided not to bother me with it...here is a canned response...

Anyway, Rep Hunter did not do that. Thank you sir....and Here is his answer:

Dear Herman,

As part of our exercise in producing a responsible budget for Washington we’re looking at a lot of options, many of which are unpleasant. We cut $4.4 billion dollars in ongoing programs in Washington in the proposal we made last week, and the impacts will be felt in many, many areas. This is one possibility.

As part of a broader cut in indigent legal defense we considered this cut. We have decided to not advance it any further in our process this year.

Rep. Ross Hunter

Chair, Ways and Means

ross.hunter@leg.wa.gov

I suggested he just repeal 9.41 completely if they want to really save some money. Then I thought about it...no that wouldn't be good, 9.41 holds state preemption

Click to expand...

Not personally, he form lettered everybody who wrote in about it.

I replied

Me said:

If you were simply attempting to amend the payment portion, your answer would not ring so hollow. However, your bill struck the entirety of section 9A.16.110, not merely section 2. Part of the language which was struck includes the provision that no person shall be put into legal jeopardy for reasonable use of force in self-defense. Combined with your voting history and comments, your assurances that it will not be advanced any further “this year” brings me no measure of reassurance. Without a significant change in your voting record towards the people’s right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and the state, I will be urging my friends to vote for a politician who respects ALL of our rights, not just the ones he finds convenient.

Click to expand...

His response (which also reads like a form letter, but maybe not?)

Hunter said:

I asked for a bill that would remove the state’s financial liability for the defense costs. One of the things you figure out in hearings is how the drafting of the bill affects various interests. Had we decided to move forward we would have adjusted it so that it did just what I said – remove the state’s financial burden.

I’m trying to balance lots of interests and produce a budget that works for the majority of legislators and the majority of citizens. You may not agree with all of the things we do – I’m beginning to think that I’ll be a lonely man all summer with all the things I’m cutting.

The session ends Friday and I didn’t advance the bill out of committee. This is a pretty certain indication of it not moving. When I say I’m not moving the bill, I’m not moving it. You can be upset about my voting record, but I hope you don’t have any reason to believe that I don’t do what I say I will. That’s the stock in trade of a legislator and I try to be consistent.

Click to expand...

In another thread, I mentioned that "Maybe he should spend less time being one of the very few people who voted against suppressors and less time focusing on pennywise, pound foolish decisions and more time actually making the hard decisions on the bigger budget items >.<"

Seriously, how much per year is spent on this statute? And how much per year will be brought in by sales tax on now able-to-be-shot-suppressors?

I will guarantee Rep Hunter's answer to me was not a form letter. I wrote more on another subject, and he briefly answered his reasoning on that topic too in such a manner it would not be possible to can.

hermannr said:

I will guarantee Rep Hunter's answer to me was not a form letter. I wrote more on another subject, and he briefly answered his reasoning on that topic too in such a manner it would not be possible to can.

Click to expand...

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


If the answer he gave you was what you pasted, that's just a form letter he sent to everyone who wrote to him about it.

Tawnos said:

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Click to expand...

What are you smokin', man?

Tawnos said:

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Click to expand...

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

Translation of what Tawnos said: Has any video game company really taken such measure to make a game so realistic?

BTW, I think the original was either the result of a question being put into a translator and being translated back and forth from English to Japanese, back to English, back to Japanese, about 20 or so times, or someone who knows the ins and outs of the English language writing something that has the correct order and combination of nouns and verbs. It's technically correct in that sense, yet the sentence makes no sense.



ANYWAY, back to the topic. Legislators for the most part are politicians, and I don't trust politicians. Let's see what happens and vote accordingly.

therealcombat said:

What are you smokin', man?

Click to expand...

Know your meme

He wrote a sentence I couldn't decipher, I responded with a common meme.