• 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.

House Bill 1508

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
Something good for a change

This Thursday, January 12, at 10 am in Olympia is a hearing for a Range Protection Bill. The hearing will be held at before the House Judiciary Committee at the state capitol campus. The John L. O'Brian building in House Hearing Room A at 10am. The Judiciary Committee agenda can be found here. A copy of House Bill 1508 can be read by clicking here. Plan to attend if you can.

Over the last 18 years, there have been 2 similiar bills passed by the legislature but vetoed by the Gov. There were not enough votes to over ride the veto.


H-1085.1 _____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 1508
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
By Representatives Takko, Probst, and Van De Wege
Read first time 01/24/11. Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
1 AN ACT Relating to protecting sport shooting ranges; adding a new
2 section to chapter 9.41 RCW; creating a new section; and declaring an
3 emergency.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that sport shooting
6 ranges in this state offer valuable hunter and firearm safety training,
7 offer legitimate and important forms of recreation to the general
8 public, and provide the opportunity for many law enforcement agencies
9 to maintain necessary firearms skills efficiently and at little or no
10 cost. The continued existence and viability of sport shooting ranges
11 is impacted by burdensome retroactive regulation and lawsuits, thereby
12 potentially threatening the availability of low-cost firearms training
13 to some local law enforcement agencies, as well as hunter and firearms
14 safety training and recreation to the general public.
15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
16 to read as follows:
17 (1)(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who
18 operates or uses a sport shooting range in this state shall not be
p. 1 HB 1508
1 subject to civil liability or criminal prosecution in any matter
2 relating to noise or noise pollution resulting from the operation or
3 use of the range if the range is in compliance with any noise control
4 laws or ordinances that applied to the range and its operation at the
5 date of construction or initial operation of the range.
6 (b) A person who operates or uses a sport shooting range is not
7 subject to an action for nuisance, and a court of the state shall not
8 enjoin the use or operation of a range on the basis of noise or noise
9 pollution, if the range is in compliance with any noise control laws or
10 ordinances that applied to the range and its operation at the date of
11 construction or initial operation of the range.
12 (c) Rules adopted by any state department or agency for limiting
13 levels of noise in terms of decibel level that may occur in the outdoor
14 atmosphere do not apply to a sport shooting range exempted from
15 liability under this section.
16 (2) A person who acquires title to or who owns real property
17 adversely affected by the use of property with a permanently located
18 and improved sport shooting range shall not maintain a nuisance action
19 against the person who owns the range to restrain, enjoin, or impede
20 the use of the range where there has not been a substantial change in
21 the nature of the use of the range. This subsection does not prohibit
22 actions for negligence or recklessness in the operation of the range or
23 by a person using the range.
24 (3) A sport shooting range that is operated and is not in violation
25 of existing law at the time of the enactment of an ordinance must be
26 permitted to continue in operation even if the operation of the sport
27 shooting range at a later date does not conform to the new ordinance or
28 an amendment to an existing ordinance.
29 (4) A person who participates in sport shooting at a sport shooting
30 range accepts the risks associated with the sport to the extent the
31 risks are obvious and inherent. Those risks include, but are not
32 limited to, injuries that may result from noise, discharge of a
33 projectile or shot, malfunction of sport shooting equipment not owned
34 by the shooting range, natural variations in terrain, surface or
35 subsurface snow or ice conditions, bare spots, rocks, trees, and other
36 forms of natural growth or debris.
37 (5) Except as otherwise provided in this section, this section does
HB 1508 p. 2
1 not prohibit a local government from regulating the location and
2 construction of a sport shooting range after the effective date of this
3 section.
4 (6) As used in this section:
5 (a) "Local government" means a county, city, or town.
6 (b) "Person" means an individual, proprietorship, partnership,
7 corporation, club, or other legal entity.
8 (c) "Sport shooting range" or "range" means an area designed and
9 operated for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet,
10 trap, black powder, or any other similar sport shooting.
11 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. This act is necessary for the immediate
12 preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the
13 state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect
14 immediately.
--- END ---
p.
 
Last edited:

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
Over the past 18 years there have been 2 similiar bills passed by the legislature but vetoed by the Gov. There were not enough votes to override the Gov's veto.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
Over the past 18 years there have been 2 similiar bills passed by the legislature but vetoed by the Gov. There were not enough votes to override the Gov's veto.

Yes, but shes not looking to get re-elected by her liberal base this time.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
I can't lie, that surprised me.

Be careful in understanding her reasoning for doing so. It wasn't an altruistic nod to the citizenry representing her trust in its ability to handle the responsibility. There were law enforcement considerations involved in how it affected their use of the devices on the same level as the rest of us.

If it hadn't been for the LE use issues involved, it would not have passed. IMHO
 
Last edited:

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
I attended the hearing with Nick this morning and my impression was very positive.Even some enforcemnt officers from the fish and wildlife spoke in behalf of this bill.All together the room was pretty full and we estimate about 2 to 1 in favor. Nick did a good job in his presentation although they were limited to about 90 seconds.These are the sort of things we need to be showing up at as opposed to anti rallys that did not accomplish anything.I observed that Nick and I were the only ones there.There were alot of folks from ranges and other gun groups however.

On a side note I spoke to a reporter and cameraman from CNN that were actually there covering another hearing.The reporter was from DC and had followed me into the hearing room.I was OC. He said in amazment that he watched me walk by 3 state patrol officers and nothing was said.One did say good morning.This reporter was shaking his head in surprise that we could do that here in the capital no less .He was also surprised we didn't have pat downs and metal detectors .He said somehting about the swat team if you did that there.Anyway Nick came up as well to talk with them and filled them in a little on Wa. gun rights and I think they had a different perspective on Wa. gun owners and the rights we still have.
 
Last edited:

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
I attended the hearing with Nick this morning and my impression was very positive.Even some enforcemnt officers from the fish and wildlife spoke in behalf of this bill.All together the room was pretty full and we estimate about 2 to 1 in favor. Nick did a good job in his presentation although they were limited to about 90 seconds.These are the sort of things we need to be showing up at as opposed to anti rallys that did not accomplish anything.I observed that Nick and I were the only ones there.There were alot of folks from ranges and other gun groups however.

On a side note I spoke to a reporter and cameraman from CNN that were actually there covering another hearing.The reporter was from DC and had followed me into the hearing room.I was OC. He said in amazment that he watched me walk by 3 state patrol officers and nothing was said.One did say good morning.This reporter was shaking his head in surprise that we could do that here in the capital no less .He was also surprised we didn't have pat downs and metal detectors .He said somehting about the swat team if you did that there.Anyway Nick came up as well to talk with them and filled them in a little on Wa. gun rights and I think they had a different perspective on Wa. gun owners and the rights we still have.

That sounds really cool. I would imagine you guys really helped by being there.
FMCDH mentioned something about law enforcement using suppressors. I wasn't aware police used them. I thought that was just a recreational shooting/military thing.
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
I was sitting right behind the table there but did not speak I thought the others had it covered very well and at that point anything I said would have been redundant.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
That sounds really cool. I would imagine you guys really helped by being there.
FMCDH mentioned something about law enforcement using suppressors. I wasn't aware police used them. I thought that was just a recreational shooting/military thing.

Here is the original bill....
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1016#documents

Read the House report...it contains the Law Enforcement interest in the bill.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bill Reports/House/1016 HBR PL 11.pdf
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I attended the hearing with Nick this morning and my impression was very positive.Even some enforcemnt officers from the fish and wildlife spoke in behalf of this bill.All together the room was pretty full and we estimate about 2 to 1 in favor. Nick did a good job in his presentation although they were limited to about 90 seconds.These are the sort of things we need to be showing up at as opposed to anti rallys that did not accomplish anything.I observed that Nick and I were the only ones there.There were alot of folks from ranges and other gun groups however.

On a side note I spoke to a reporter and cameraman from CNN that were actually there covering another hearing.The reporter was from DC and had followed me into the hearing room.I was OC. He said in amazment that he watched me walk by 3 state patrol officers and nothing was said.One did say good morning.This reporter was shaking his head in surprise that we could do that here in the capital no less .He was also surprised we didn't have pat downs and metal detectors .He said somehting about the swat team if you did that there.Anyway Nick came up as well to talk with them and filled them in a little on Wa. gun rights and I think they had a different perspective on Wa. gun owners and the rights we still have.

What an education the CNN reporter got, great job Deros. Wish I could have been there this time. This is the way its done.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
UPDATE, from Rep. Hansen

Pasted from my email, the language agreed upon with regard to HB1508

(1) In any nuisance action based on noise or noise pollution
7 brought against a person who owns or operates a permanently located and
8 improved sport shooting range, it is an affirmative defense to the
9 nuisance action that the sport shooting range was in operation prior to
10 the date the plaintiff acquired title to the real property adversely
11 affected by the use of the sport shooting range and that there has not
12 been a substantial change in the nature of the use of the sport
13 shooting range since the date the plaintiff acquired title to the
14 adversely affected real property.

This language won unanimous bipartisan support today in the Judiciary Committee – all six Republicans as well as all seven Democrats voted to support it -- and I’ll look forward to seeing it move forward.

Thank you again for writing, and please stop by and visit if you’re ever in Olympia!
Drew
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA

On a side note I spoke to a reporter and cameraman from CNN that were actually there covering another hearing.The reporter was from DC and had followed me into the hearing room.I was OC. He said in amazment that he watched me walk by 3 state patrol officers and nothing was said.One did say good morning.This reporter was shaking his head in surprise that we could do that here in the capital no less .He was also surprised we didn't have pat downs and metal detectors .He said somehting about the swat team if you did that there.Anyway Nick came up as well to talk with them and filled them in a little on Wa. gun rights and I think they had a different perspective on Wa. gun owners and the rights we still have.

Did you point out to the reporter that there was no blood flowing in the hallways even though you and Nick were carrying firearms?
 
Top