HBs I-591 & I-594 Judiciary Hearing Jan 28th 130pm (Olympia)

[Freedom1Man]

Maybe they think they should rely on passing it to find out what's in it? :lol:

That is like hiring an adult entertainer from CL without getting a screening done until after "services rendered."

I think they should all try that a few times before they ever say, "we need to pass the law to read what the law is/was going to be."

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I think the biggest thing we need to push is the REAL impacts 594 will have on safety. These will be the most compelling to those on the fence that are genuinely concerned about making their communities safer (or keeping them from getting worse). I was very impressed with the testimony from our side (except that Terry guy, WTF) who brought up numerous points I hadn't thought of yet. Less safety classes, not being able to loan firearms to family/friends in imminent danger, victims being disarmed due to routine investigation because they defended themselves with their firearm. There were some very compelling stories that illustrated the real impact this law would have in making us less safe, and those need to be driven out to the masses in every way possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Which one was that? What did he say? I don't remember any of our people doing bad...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I have the fear that people will be confused and pass them both. Theoretically, that shouldn't be a problem. They are NOT mutually exclusive, they do NOT cancel each other out or overrule each other. They can actually co-exist. 591 would simply "freeze" or "pause" 594 indefinitely and if the feds ever adopted a national standard identical to 594, then 594 would activate.

However, the mistaken belief that they are mutually exclusive is so prevalent that even some judges have made public comments supporting that idea, so it's possible our supreme court may act wrongly and pick one over the other.

No if people are confused they'll pass neither, think back to the GMO food labeling initiative. It was a great idea, the law was clearly worded, but the big corporations bought out the media and ran ads saying it was "misleading" he'll they never explained why it was, they just kept up the "misleading" theme. Then they said "it puts no limits to the money bureaucrats can spend enforcing it" (uh yeah because laws do not set appropriations, that's a separate process) in fact they simply spread enough confusion that voters rejected it. If people have no clue what the law will do they will reject....

 

[Freedom1Man]

No if people are confused they'll pass neither, think back to the GMO food labeling initiative. It was a great idea, the law was clearly worded, but the big corporations bought out the media and ran ads saying it was "misleading" he'll they never explained why it was, they just kept up the "misleading" theme. Then they said "it puts no limits to the money bureaucrats can spend enforcing it" (uh yeah because laws do not set appropriations, that's a separate process) in fact they simply spread enough confusion that voters rejected it. If people have no clue what the law will do they will reject....

If the media, tells them to be confused, then I would agree with you.

You were spot on with the I522 thing BTW.

 

[Geerolla]

Which one was that? What did he say? I don't remember any of our people doing bad...

He was towards the end. He immediately started out about distrust of gov due to the possibility of line cutting (which sounds like did happen, but didn't seem like the right place to complain about it) and was pretty much rambling after that. It was short, but had me worried for a minute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EMNofSeattle]

He was towards the end. He immediately started out about distrust of gov due to the possibility of line cutting (which sounds like did happen, but didn't seem like the right place to complain about it) and was pretty much rambling after that. It was short, but had me worried for a minute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oh, the guy from Chehalis with the green flannel who complained about mole traps.... got it...

 

[kparker]

EMNofSeattle:

"t was a great idea"

Bzzzzzt!

Thanks for trying to play...!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

EMNofSeattle:

"t was a great idea"

Bzzzzzt!

Thanks for trying to play...!

Hey if you trust the big business that for years denied their chemicals caused harm to Vietnam veterans to make your food then good on you....

 

[Difdi]

The legislature can pass a rule banning carry on the capitol grounds without passing an actual statute. They are not a municipal corporation affected by preemption so they can pass pretty much whatever they want.

While state preemption does not bind the legislature, the state constitution does.

Gee, I wonder who wrote that bit of unconstitutional goodness.

Please explain how a state constitution can violate the state constitution? Remember, the US constitution ALSO contains a similar provision.

you're always subject to federal law no matter what the state law is.....

Untrue. You are only subject to federal law no matter what the state law is in areas of the law subject to federal supremacy. In areas of the law that the US constitution denies to the federal government by reserving them to the states and/or the people, it is entirely possible for a state law to override or even abolish a federal law within that state.

If that were not true, then there was no need for the 18th amendment to enact prohibition of alcohol nationally. And yet, they had to amend the US constitution to stop the courts from striking prohibition down. The feds had exactly the same degree and scope of federal supremacy in 1914 that they do today in 2014.

 

[Thor80]

Sounds like some pro 594 people got their "feelers" hurt.....

It accused Roach of suggesting female background-check supporters were trying to appear "helpless" to gain support, and Judy for joking that the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Conn., would not have been prevented by increased background checks due to a "murder-your-mom" loophole.

http://www.krem.com/news/Wash-gun-violence-victims-claim-disrespect-at-hearing-244551651.html

-Thor

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Sounds like some pro 594 people got their "feelers" hurt.....



http://www.krem.com/news/Wash-gun-violence-victims-claim-disrespect-at-hearing-244551651.html

-Thor

Was Judy joking when he said that? He sounded pretty serious to me...

 

[davidmcbeth]

Typical. Held on a weekday in the middle of the day. The 9-5ers never get to put their words in. Well, give them "hell" for me.

?? provide written testimony to the committee yourself ...

 

[Alpine]

What is particularly absurd is that the pro-594 people were actually hostile and insulting to those of us who were there to testify against it.

I'm sure you guys who made it there or watched it remember the several people who got nasty in their testimony. One woman kept addressing Steve O'Ban, the Senator, telling him that he had his own agenda and didn't care about people, and she eventually got ruled out of order and thrown out.

Another woman went on and on about how she's tired of hearing people tell her "I'm so sorry for your loss but..." and how she said she was tired of hearing the "but" and that those people were excusing 'evil committed by guns.'

We also heard OVER AND OVER AND OVER how horrible and awful the NRA was and how it is a 'corrupting influence' and doesn't care about civil rights of gun owners and that it is a 'mere shill' for the firearm manufacturers.

I'd say on the rudeness scale the pro-594 folks were far worse.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

What is particularly absurd is that the pro-594 people were actually hostile and insulting to those of us who were there to testify against it.

I'm sure you guys who made it there or watched it remember the several people who got nasty in their testimony. One woman kept addressing Steve O'Ban, the Senator, telling him that he had his own agenda and didn't care about people, and she eventually got ruled out of order and thrown out.

Another woman went on and on about how she's tired of hearing people tell her "I'm so sorry for your loss but..." and how she said she was tired of hearing the "but" and that those people were excusing 'evil committed by guns.'

We also heard OVER AND OVER AND OVER how horrible and awful the NRA was and how it is a 'corrupting influence' and doesn't care about civil rights of gun owners and that it is a 'mere shill' for the firearm manufacturers.

I'd say on the rudeness scale the pro-594 folks were far worse.

They are unconstitutional anti liberty of course they are rude!

 

[tombrewster421]

While state preemption does not bind the legislature, the state constitution does.



Please explain how a state constitution can violate the state constitution? Remember, the US constitution ALSO contains a similar provision.

.

Well maybe not unconstitutional, but wrong at least. Not sure where the idea of everyone being equal under the law is but if it is in the constitution then it is divided against itself and cannot stand.

Do you know where the idea of all being equal under the law is. I'm not sure where to start looking.

Well Google worked.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law

It's the fourteenth amendment. And since the state constitution states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land then the part I was referring to is in fact unconstitutional.

 

[DevinWKuska]

Really? Legislators don't have to follow rules or laws?

I thought all citizens were equal under the law. Are some "more" equal?

How about the fact that the constitution is "the supreme law of the land." Surely they must be required to follow that then right? After all, the constitution is there to restrain those very people. That's why it was written.

IF that were true than this forum would be unnecessary wouldn't it?

Then I won't stop pointing out you are anti liberty, statist, compromising, hubris laden arrogant ass.
You are absolutely wrong. First the constitution of our state is a law, (so is the one of the U.S.) one they must follow.
Second nowhere does it exempt officials from laws they made. Third You must cite, according to forum rules.
Wah wah wah, we were warned last time at the assault weapon ban too, even if what you say is true your constant position of capitulation to fear is utterly disgusting. Screw your warnings! I am a free person and not into playing your political games or believe for one second you are in any position to give me any "warnings". Our courts have also ruled our constitution provides stronger protections than the federal constitution. The case you mentioned has nothing to do with the state of Washington, its a federal case. Also I don't give a rats ass about your "don't exercise a right because you might loose it" position. That is contrary to the principle of this site and contrary to our individual liberty as spelled out in article 1 Section 7.
How did your cases go? The ones you argued for the privilege over the right? Oh yea you tried to blame others for your loss......

Since your quoting rules...
(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

Why on earth is 591 being touted as an initiative that protects our gun rights? It says that if the federal government comes up with a universal background check system we will follow it. Screw that! 591 and 594 should both be defeated, I'm not interested in giving our federal goverment more power and I'm certainly not in favor of universal background checks.

I would agree with you except the government is getting alot of anti gun initiatives/laws put before them so IMO giving the anti gun folks a reason to lay off of the whole registration thing is necessary. Its not perfect but as we all know there are a lot of folks who think guns should just be outlawed all together.

That was a bad move IMHO. The results were predictable based on the argument presented. It is interesting the guy that used extremely poor judgement and set a legal precedent IMHO is now attempting to tell everyone else how it should be done.

Please see above regarding Rule #6 regarding personal attacks. We can all disagree on a civil basis no reason to get nasty towards each other. I think we are all on the same side lets not start looking like the current republican party with petty squabbles making it seem like gun owners are disorganized and uncivilized.

Good point.

It was insane how during the Senate hearing the 594 author/sponsor kept denying that handing someone a gun and them walking a few feet with it or shooting it and then handing it back was a transfer, even after Brian Judy read their definition of "transfer" right from the initiative. "The intended delivery of a firearm to another person."

I wish he had taken his water bottle, picked it up, got out of his chair, walked 3 feet over to her, put the bottle in front of her and said "there, I just intentionally delivered my bottle to you."

Well she didnt "feel" it said that lol. Can you see it coming? "Mr Judge I didnt feel robbing that bank was illegal, I felt I was being entrepreneural!"

I thought it was interesting that the crowd who was promoting I-594 had not even read the law while even the NRA guy, reading the law verbatim, proved them wrong and they continued to deny it.

Glad I wasnt the only one who felt like they hadnt even read the bill they were supporting.

He was towards the end. He immediately started out about distrust of gov due to the possibility of line cutting (which sounds like did happen, but didn't seem like the right place to complain about it) and was pretty much rambling after that. It was short, but had me worried for a minute.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I was kinda frustrated by that as nothing anti gun folks love is paranoid gun owners to crucify for their cause. On a more personal level I was a bit disappointed nobody offered any challenges to the pro-594 folks. It seems like someone should have said "Look get rid of the paper trail and this whole transfer non sense and we can all sit down and talk." To me anyway that would have been a respectful(from both sides) way to offer them what they touted they were looking for. This would also leave them holding the bag so to speak. If they came back and said no deal then their argument for only wanting backround checks is null and void.

 

[Geerolla]

Yeah I was kinda frustrated by that as nothing anti gun folks love is paranoid gun owners to crucify for their cause. On a more personal level I was a bit disappointed nobody offered any challenges to the pro-594 folks. It seems like someone should have said "Look get rid of the paper trail and this whole transfer non sense and we can all sit down and talk." To me anyway that would have been a respectful(from both sides) way to offer them what they touted they were looking for. This would also leave them holding the bag so to speak. If they came back and said no deal then their argument for only wanting backround checks is null and void.

If they really wanted a compromise, don't you think it would have been done while drafting the initiative? I think the recent MAIG revelation should answer that question about most of these organizations.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[EMNofSeattle]

IF that were true than this forum would be unnecessary wouldn't it?



Since your quoting rules...
(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!


I would agree with you except the government is getting alot of anti gun initiatives/laws put before them so IMO giving the anti gun folks a reason to lay off of the whole registration thing is necessary. Its not perfect but as we all know there are a lot of folks who think guns should just be outlawed all together.



Please see above regarding Rule #6 regarding personal attacks. We can all disagree on a civil basis no reason to get nasty towards each other. I think we are all on the same side lets not start looking like the current republican party with petty squabbles making it seem like gun owners are disorganized and uncivilized.


Well she didnt "feel" it said that lol. Can you see it coming? "Mr Judge I didnt feel robbing that bank was illegal, I felt I was being entrepreneural!"


Glad I wasnt the only one who felt like they hadnt even read the bill they were supporting.

Yeah I was kinda frustrated by that as nothing anti gun folks love is paranoid gun owners to crucify for their cause. On a more personal level I was a bit disappointed nobody offered any challenges to the pro-594 folks. It seems like someone should have said "Look get rid of the paper trail and this whole transfer non sense and we can all sit down and talk." To me anyway that would have been a respectful(from both sides) way to offer them what they touted they were looking for. This would also leave them holding the bag so to speak. If they came back and said no deal then their argument for only wanting backround checks is null and void.

I don't think personal attacks means what you think it means....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I don't think personal attacks means what you think it means....

+1

Besides that Gray Peter who is a mod who happens to ignore that rule when he seems fit even to the point of being untruthful about it.

 

[DevinWKuska]

I don't think personal attacks means what you think it means....

Merriam Webster defines attack as
: to act violently against (someone or something) : to try to hurt, injure, or destroy (something or someone)

: to criticize (someone or something) in a very harsh and severe way

: to begin to work on or deal with (something, such as a problem) in a determined and eager way

Merriam Webster defines Personal as...
: belonging or relating to a particular person

: made or designed to be used by one person

So it would seem to me that the second definition of attack is very fitting dont you? Perphaps you would like to elaborate on your definition of personal attack? Regarding Mods.. thats up to the Admins to decide. If you or anyone has issues with a moderator and can submit proof then contacting admins would seem pertinent. I was simply trying to limit the amount of personal attacks by reminding of a forum rule since I FEEL in a single post stating to follow forum rules, a rule was broken. I suppose we could submit the incident to moderators and let them make the call, but I just figured a friendly reminder would be better served. I guess not.