Sorry AK 56...(post # 40) I would have to disagree on this approach.....for me it's "shoot for the moon, you might land on the roof"....
...because any modification to the existing statute, opens it up for any amendment by anyone...anti legislators as well as anti groups. IMO, I don't see any reason in the world to leave the anti's "something" if an effort to mount a legislative change/clarification was made...you are assuming that they are happy with the status quo....they clearly are not.....ie: Where do you think the WSP, Washington County Sheriffs Association, 2/3rds of the county PA's, let alone the local city PA's would come out on this?...and that's not even considering the general population anti groups. They're well organized and have enough money to push back and push back hard....
That's not to say that it couldn't be successful, but it would need a serious plan, resources and strategy to succeed....my analogy is hitting Omaha Beach with half the force and only 1 bullet per soldier and then landing the invasion force exactly where they thought we were going to land....we don't have to convince ourselves this makes sense....we have to convince everyone else.
A lot of the language in the MT statute makes it crystal clear on what is allowed and what is enforceable....I also like the recognition in the language that recognizes police response is not in one's decision making process, when reasonably threatend, and any subsequent investigation is tilted toward support the self defense nature of the investigation, not the other way round....and being able to inform your assailent that you are armed is not a crime, as thatcould be construed as "intimidating" and warrenting alarm (in your assailent) in the current WA law.
A change in WA law would be a long and arduous process (at least two years) to move it through the legislature....so you may as well go for the full monty.....claim as much political ground as you want and work back from there in the legislative process.....
I've done this before....it has to be well organized and takes an inhuman amount of commitment...there are at least 8 committee hearings (four on each side of house) that the language change would have to be marshalled through, along with some version of a fiscal impact review..... in addition, the effort needed to do a lot more than an email campaign to get 8 committee chairs to move it through each committee to a public hearing. Add to that the fact that the committee "do pass" recommendations are sequential, and it makes it all that much harder...if it stops in any one of the committee's is will die there.
As I've said before, it is much easier to get a legislative change shut down than it is to get one passed....you just need enough dogs barking in the yard to let the legislators know that the issue doesn't have consensus not on the merits of it being right or wrong.
Quite frankly, although I agree and see the need for clarification as great as anyone here, the likely lack of enough legislative experience and networking of this group being successful, is low....
And so, not to throw water on anybody parade, with that said, is there anyone who can offer this?:
1.) The names of at least two pro-gun Democrats and Republicans on the WEST side that you have a working and personal relationship with. (Note that one each, has to be in the House and one each, from the Senate)...who also happen to be the chairs of (any of) the respective committee's that will get the bill for consideration.
2.) The willingness to contact their office and ask for them to take a meeting....(and set a date).
3.) The willingness to get the 40-60 people on this forum to agree on legislative change language to bring forward.
4.) The ability to get the first three steps accomplished by no later than November 10th.
....because that's when the process for legislative bills to be dropped will begin....about 4,000 of them...all to be put into the process (meat grinder) and handled in the upcoming legislative session.
.........and if you can, then I'm in all the way!
(OK, Flame ON)