Richard6218
Regular Member
imported post
Orphan wrote:
Orphan wrote:
To those you can add Arizona and Montana.
-
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.
-
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.
Kline, anti-gunners unveil AWB legislation SB 6396
- Thread starter Dave Workman
- Start date
jarhead1911A
New member
imported post
It appears to me that we have alot of idiots in office, I can not see LEO's going door to door for guns from legal gun owners.
I truely believe that if it pass's we will end up in a civil war and even more people will loose there lifes because the few try and control and enforce there will on the many.
I have no wish to see the loss of life to keep my 2nd but i will damn sure do what i need to so my rights are respected and acknowledged.
It appears to me that we have alot of idiots in office, I can not see LEO's going door to door for guns from legal gun owners.
I truely believe that if it pass's we will end up in a civil war and even more people will loose there lifes because the few try and control and enforce there will on the many.
I have no wish to see the loss of life to keep my 2nd but i will damn sure do what i need to so my rights are respected and acknowledged.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
imported post
Richard6218 wrote:
Richard6218 wrote:
We are actually going to Arizona in March to look for a winter home right after I get thru my 5 day Front Sight class. I like Montana too, we have good friends that live in the Bitterroot Valley.
Lammo
Regular Member
imported post
Nothing in House Bill 6396 will make the actions of the killers of the Seattle Police officer, the Lakewood Police officers or the Pierce County Deputy Sheriff any more criminal than they already were.
Let's just take the example of Maurice Clemmons, killer of the Lakewood officers. As a convicted felon, it was both a state and federal felony for Clemmons to possess a firearm. RCW 9.41.040 and 18 US Code 922(g). As a person free on bond facing a charge of Rape of a Child in the Second Degree, it was a state felony for Clemmons to possess a firearm. RCW 9.41.040(2)(iv). As a person under supervision by the Department of Corrections, it was a violation of that supervision for Clemmons to possess a firearm. RCW 9.41.045.
The provisions of HB 6396 will only impact law abiding gun owners. In the case of the magazine restrictions found in Section 2, this bill would potentially make an unwary gun owner into a felon for simply having 11 rounds in a standard capacity magazine.
Every effort must be made to stop this from passing in the legislature. On the off chance that it does pass, every effort will need to be made to overturn it through the referendum and/or initiative process.
------
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
Unlawful is against the law. Illegal is a sick bird.
Nothing in House Bill 6396 will make the actions of the killers of the Seattle Police officer, the Lakewood Police officers or the Pierce County Deputy Sheriff any more criminal than they already were.
Let's just take the example of Maurice Clemmons, killer of the Lakewood officers. As a convicted felon, it was both a state and federal felony for Clemmons to possess a firearm. RCW 9.41.040 and 18 US Code 922(g). As a person free on bond facing a charge of Rape of a Child in the Second Degree, it was a state felony for Clemmons to possess a firearm. RCW 9.41.040(2)(iv). As a person under supervision by the Department of Corrections, it was a violation of that supervision for Clemmons to possess a firearm. RCW 9.41.045.
The provisions of HB 6396 will only impact law abiding gun owners. In the case of the magazine restrictions found in Section 2, this bill would potentially make an unwary gun owner into a felon for simply having 11 rounds in a standard capacity magazine.
Every effort must be made to stop this from passing in the legislature. On the off chance that it does pass, every effort will need to be made to overturn it through the referendum and/or initiative process.
------
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
Unlawful is against the law. Illegal is a sick bird.
seattleric007
Banned
imported post
imported post
Well Lammo do you expect us to just give up and register our guns if this passes in hopes of a referendum.Give up our right to carry .They won't stop.They will not be inspecting my home without consequences.So you will comply untill an initiative is filed.????
And Eric I don't think anyone saw you on KOMO or cares ...not the issue.
Well Lammo do you expect us to just give up and register our guns if this passes in hopes of a referendum.Give up our right to carry .They won't stop.They will not be inspecting my home without consequences.So you will comply untill an initiative is filed.????
And Eric I don't think anyone saw you on KOMO or cares ...not the issue.
jarhead1911A
New member
imported post
I have to side with DEROS and his perfect hair, No one will enter my home cop or not without a warrent to see what goodies i own, Todo so is an act of war and i will respond in kind,
Awhile back there was a guy who got into a shootout with the police because they no knocked his house and did not annouce themselfs. He shot several of them in the fight and they tried to charge him with attempted murder of a police officer.
Is this what we want??? is this what our four fathers had in mind for our great nation?
I have to side with DEROS and his perfect hair, No one will enter my home cop or not without a warrent to see what goodies i own, Todo so is an act of war and i will respond in kind,
Awhile back there was a guy who got into a shootout with the police because they no knocked his house and did not annouce themselfs. He shot several of them in the fight and they tried to charge him with attempted murder of a police officer.
Is this what we want??? is this what our four fathers had in mind for our great nation?
imported post
Exactly Jarhead and yes my heart may be screwed up but I do sit here with perfect hair....Anyway we cant let this happen.I won't wait for iniatives and referendums.It is all about total control. Once we are disarmed they will be unlimited in their violations of Constitutional rights.
Jarhhead.....got any Moose??Wait you wouldn't need any...
Exactly Jarhead and yes my heart may be screwed up but I do sit here with perfect hair....Anyway we cant let this happen.I won't wait for iniatives and referendums.It is all about total control. Once we are disarmed they will be unlimited in their violations of Constitutional rights.
Jarhhead.....got any Moose??Wait you wouldn't need any...
Whitney
Regular Member
imported post
Here is another example...I sent this earlier today.
Dear District Legislators,
I am writing to express my opposition to SB 6396, "Banning the sale of assault weapons."
I am appalled at the use of the language in Section 1 of this bill that defines "assault weapon". The terminology used in the bill is very broad; it impacts all gun owners and has no real distinction of a military style weapon. This bill if passed will only serve to punish law abiding citizens and will not likely prevent the tragic events I can only surmise spawned it. This bill will severely impact law abiding citizens from exercising their right to bear arms provided in the United States and Washington State Constitutions.
In the simplest layman terms I can articulate, the new Section 2 subsection 2 will prevent me from possessing or having under my control a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle and a .22 caliber semiautomatic pistol capable of holding more than 10 rounds at the same time. This section reads like the action a criminal might take. It has been proven outlaws don’t care about the law. This simply does not meet the prudent man test. Is this really what the lawmakers intended?
The bill contains a provision that will "ALLOW" me to continue to possess an assault weapon provided I keep it safely and securely stored, however, I must allow the Sheriff to conduct a warrantless search to make sure I am in compliance. The idea that our lawmakers would force law abiding citizens to open their homes for random inspection is very disturbing to me. I should not feel like a criminal in my own home for obeying the law.
I simply will NOT vote for any law maker that will stand in support of this irresponsible, irrational legislation.
Very Respectfully,
Here is another example...I sent this earlier today.
Dear District Legislators,
I am writing to express my opposition to SB 6396, "Banning the sale of assault weapons."
I am appalled at the use of the language in Section 1 of this bill that defines "assault weapon". The terminology used in the bill is very broad; it impacts all gun owners and has no real distinction of a military style weapon. This bill if passed will only serve to punish law abiding citizens and will not likely prevent the tragic events I can only surmise spawned it. This bill will severely impact law abiding citizens from exercising their right to bear arms provided in the United States and Washington State Constitutions.
In the simplest layman terms I can articulate, the new Section 2 subsection 2 will prevent me from possessing or having under my control a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle and a .22 caliber semiautomatic pistol capable of holding more than 10 rounds at the same time. This section reads like the action a criminal might take. It has been proven outlaws don’t care about the law. This simply does not meet the prudent man test. Is this really what the lawmakers intended?
The bill contains a provision that will "ALLOW" me to continue to possess an assault weapon provided I keep it safely and securely stored, however, I must allow the Sheriff to conduct a warrantless search to make sure I am in compliance. The idea that our lawmakers would force law abiding citizens to open their homes for random inspection is very disturbing to me. I should not feel like a criminal in my own home for obeying the law.
I simply will NOT vote for any law maker that will stand in support of this irresponsible, irrational legislation.
Very Respectfully,
jarhead1911A
New member
imported post
DEROS72 wrote:
Got any Viagra? oh wait only u need that.........:celebrate
DEROS72 wrote:
Hey jim,
Got any Viagra? oh wait only u need that.........:celebrate
Lammo
Regular Member
imported post
DEROS72 wrote:
DEROS72 wrote:
Well DEROS, a man has to do what a man has to do. If you really want me to believe that you would actually shoot to kill a law enforcement officer just trying to do their job, so be it. Pretty easy to say on a message board but when it comes time for film at 11, not so much. Talk like that only gives the b@$t@rds the kind of ammunition they need to paint gun owners as crazy. I advocate reason and logic and working within the system to try to stop this monstrosity and you want to shoot the messenger. Nice.
antispam540
Regular Member
imported post
Lammo wrote:
Lammo wrote:
What are we supposed to do? Law enforcement officers *know* that their job is to protect the rights of citizens, not infringe upon them. Any guy that comes around to take guns away is no longer "just trying to do their job". I advocate reason and logic, too - by all means, we should work within the system to effect change. When they show up knocking in your door, it's too late for that. Would you really give up your rights to those people, or would you defend them with force? I don't know the answer to that, yet, and I'd really like to see more about what options we have under the law. Chances are, though, at least some of us will refuse them entry.
imported post
I will be working within the system as well untill such time they decide not to follow the Constitution .All they need to do is drop the issue.They have no right to discuss what rights we have.We do not answer to them ,they answer to us.These rights are not something they can bestow or take away, they are inflexible.I will defend my home as if it were a home invasion witch it would in fact be.You don't know my history so don't make presumptions on what I would or wouldn't do.
Did our forefathers just give in to the British and say well we will file an initiative? No they killed them untill they were left alone.These kind of people are becoming way to bold in this liberal ideology in that they think they have the right to ristrict us in the very rights reiterated in our Constitution.
Law enforcement has no business trying to enforce an unconstitutionaledict ,which is all it is.
I will be working within the system as well untill such time they decide not to follow the Constitution .All they need to do is drop the issue.They have no right to discuss what rights we have.We do not answer to them ,they answer to us.These rights are not something they can bestow or take away, they are inflexible.I will defend my home as if it were a home invasion witch it would in fact be.You don't know my history so don't make presumptions on what I would or wouldn't do.
Did our forefathers just give in to the British and say well we will file an initiative? No they killed them untill they were left alone.These kind of people are becoming way to bold in this liberal ideology in that they think they have the right to ristrict us in the very rights reiterated in our Constitution.
Law enforcement has no business trying to enforce an unconstitutionaledict ,which is all it is.
imported post
....We hold these truths to be self- evident ,that all Men are created equal that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights,tha among these are life ,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness-----That to secure these rights,governments are instituted amoung men,deriving their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,that whenever any form of becomes destructive of these ends,it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..........
From the declaration of Independence,second continental Congress July 4th 1776
and the second ammendment...A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of the state ,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
To me it is pretty cut and dry.My rights were not given to me by man nor a government.The Constitution simply re-itterated rights we already have as human beings.We have now a government that is becoming destructive to our rights therefore it is up to us ,the goverend to abolish or change it.Trying to take my second and fourth ammendments are destructive and not approved by us .
It says the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms...not which arms or only sometimes or limited places etc. Alot of folks died over the last 230 or so years to protect this,can we do less??
....We hold these truths to be self- evident ,that all Men are created equal that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights,tha among these are life ,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness-----That to secure these rights,governments are instituted amoung men,deriving their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,that whenever any form of becomes destructive of these ends,it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..........
From the declaration of Independence,second continental Congress July 4th 1776
and the second ammendment...A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of the state ,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
To me it is pretty cut and dry.My rights were not given to me by man nor a government.The Constitution simply re-itterated rights we already have as human beings.We have now a government that is becoming destructive to our rights therefore it is up to us ,the goverend to abolish or change it.Trying to take my second and fourth ammendments are destructive and not approved by us .
It says the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms...not which arms or only sometimes or limited places etc. Alot of folks died over the last 230 or so years to protect this,can we do less??
lev
New member
imported post
I have been lurking on the board for quite some time now. I have enjoyed the banter (sometimes) and have found a large amount of good information. This proposed bill has motivated me to write my state senator. I happen to live in the district of one of the sponsoring senators (Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles). I wrote her the letter below, which I am posting for your consideration. I am sure I disagree about many issues with many of you, but I hold the right to self defense as sacred. I urge those of you who have not written to your state senators to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Senator Kohl-Welles,
I am your constituent as well as your neighbor. I live in Seattle, in Queen Anne. I support public education, I am pro-choice, and I am pro-environment. I am staunch supporter of the right of same sex couples to marry under the law of our country. I strongly support a vast improvement in our healthcare system for those who can't get that care in today's system. In my opinion, decent healthcare is a human right in any society that can provide it.
I am graduate school educated, from a family that has a deep love and appreciation for education. My life partner is a physician. From this background, I want to believe that our legislative system, behaves rationally. I am on occasion sadly reminded that this is not always the case.
I like many of my fellow Seattle residents were greatly troubled in recent months by the spate of police killings in the area. Six officers were gunned down in senseless acts of violence. The desire to see this not reoccur is no doubt something we all agree on.
I want you to understand that I am not writing out of any loyalty to any political faction. I make my own opinions.
It was with great dismay that I read this evening the complete text of Senate Bill 6396, "Banning the sale of assault weapons" (accessed 1/13/2010 from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6396.pdf).
What is so disturbing to me about this bill, is that in a time when there is bipartisan political will to attempt to stem violence, you are proposing a bill that not only is designed to maximally inflame pro-gun supporters, but it is almost entirely devoid of any practical use.
Let me be clear. I am not proposing that nothing be done, but let us examine the evidence. Three men, allegedly carried out three shootings that led to the death of the six officers. Two of these men are dead, one is now on trial. In two of the cases the weapons used were not "assault weapons" by the definition of the proposed bill.
In the third case, the weapon believed to be used by Mr. Monfort in the first shooting, that killed one officer, was identified by the media as a Kel-Tec SU-16 rifle (accessed 1/13/2010 from http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/186117.asp). This is a sporting rifle that is advertised on the Kel-Tec website as not having a pistol grip and having a 10 round magazine. It may constitute an assault weapon under the bill but only because it may have a "barrel shroud". It is not clear why this feature, which has no added lethality, should turn a semi-automatic rifle into an "assault weapon".
In the other two cases handguns (not covered by this bill) were the weapons used to kill the other five police officers.
Let me enumerate why else I think this bill is counter-productive and wrong:
1) Many firearms fall under the bill's definition of "assault weapon" that are used solely for hunting and target practice. Furthermore there are many firearms that would not be classified as "assault weapons" that are equally lethal. The definition of "assault weapon" in this bill is not one that makes any rational sense in terms of the danger presented by the defined weapons.
2) Many Washington residents legally and safely own firearms that would be classified under your bill as "assault weapons". Your bill would mandate that these residents allow a search of their homes on a yearly basis, despite no indication of wrong doing or other warrant.
3) There is nothing to stop weapons from being bought in adjoining states and then brought in illegally by criminals.
4) There are many other things that would be effective at stemming the violence. Why not use this time to push forward proactive and meaningful measures?
5) At least two of these alleged perpetrators (Maurice Clemmons and David Crable) did not have the legal right to own firearms of any kind, so why is more legislation on gun ownership the answer? How about better enforcement of existing laws?
6) From the Washington State Constitution (accessed 1/13/2010 from http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx): "SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired". This explicitly states that the possession of firearms for purposes of self defense is enshrined in our state constitution. Thus restricting firearms to be possessed only for sport or hunting is against our state constitution.
I would be fully supportive of legislative measures that sought to get to the root of the violence and crime. How about bills to better fund our police? How about bills to better track violent offenders (like Maurice Clemmons)? What about legal safe guards on preventing guns from getting into the hands of felons (like Maurice Clemmons) and people with a history of domestic violence (like David Crable)? Laws already exist to restrict these men from having firearms. Why do we think more restrictive ownership laws would slow them down?
Unless you propose to make illegal all firearms, and then figure out how to get all of the present firearms legal and otherwise out of circulation, limiting the types of guns available for sale, legally, in Washington State is useless. It will merely limit law abiding citizens in what firearms they can buy and possess.
I would like to sit down and talk with you about my concerns. I know you must have a busy schedule but I would love the opportunity to understand your view point on this issue. It is a complex problem and I will admit that perhaps I am missing something that would make this bill useful and effective. If you could find 15 minutes to talk with me that would go a long way to restoring some of my faith in our representative democracy. I would be happy to meet anytime, anywhere in the greater western Washington Area.
Sincerely,
Lev
I have been lurking on the board for quite some time now. I have enjoyed the banter (sometimes) and have found a large amount of good information. This proposed bill has motivated me to write my state senator. I happen to live in the district of one of the sponsoring senators (Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles). I wrote her the letter below, which I am posting for your consideration. I am sure I disagree about many issues with many of you, but I hold the right to self defense as sacred. I urge those of you who have not written to your state senators to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Senator Kohl-Welles,
I am your constituent as well as your neighbor. I live in Seattle, in Queen Anne. I support public education, I am pro-choice, and I am pro-environment. I am staunch supporter of the right of same sex couples to marry under the law of our country. I strongly support a vast improvement in our healthcare system for those who can't get that care in today's system. In my opinion, decent healthcare is a human right in any society that can provide it.
I am graduate school educated, from a family that has a deep love and appreciation for education. My life partner is a physician. From this background, I want to believe that our legislative system, behaves rationally. I am on occasion sadly reminded that this is not always the case.
I like many of my fellow Seattle residents were greatly troubled in recent months by the spate of police killings in the area. Six officers were gunned down in senseless acts of violence. The desire to see this not reoccur is no doubt something we all agree on.
I want you to understand that I am not writing out of any loyalty to any political faction. I make my own opinions.
It was with great dismay that I read this evening the complete text of Senate Bill 6396, "Banning the sale of assault weapons" (accessed 1/13/2010 from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6396.pdf).
What is so disturbing to me about this bill, is that in a time when there is bipartisan political will to attempt to stem violence, you are proposing a bill that not only is designed to maximally inflame pro-gun supporters, but it is almost entirely devoid of any practical use.
Let me be clear. I am not proposing that nothing be done, but let us examine the evidence. Three men, allegedly carried out three shootings that led to the death of the six officers. Two of these men are dead, one is now on trial. In two of the cases the weapons used were not "assault weapons" by the definition of the proposed bill.
In the third case, the weapon believed to be used by Mr. Monfort in the first shooting, that killed one officer, was identified by the media as a Kel-Tec SU-16 rifle (accessed 1/13/2010 from http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/186117.asp). This is a sporting rifle that is advertised on the Kel-Tec website as not having a pistol grip and having a 10 round magazine. It may constitute an assault weapon under the bill but only because it may have a "barrel shroud". It is not clear why this feature, which has no added lethality, should turn a semi-automatic rifle into an "assault weapon".
In the other two cases handguns (not covered by this bill) were the weapons used to kill the other five police officers.
Let me enumerate why else I think this bill is counter-productive and wrong:
1) Many firearms fall under the bill's definition of "assault weapon" that are used solely for hunting and target practice. Furthermore there are many firearms that would not be classified as "assault weapons" that are equally lethal. The definition of "assault weapon" in this bill is not one that makes any rational sense in terms of the danger presented by the defined weapons.
2) Many Washington residents legally and safely own firearms that would be classified under your bill as "assault weapons". Your bill would mandate that these residents allow a search of their homes on a yearly basis, despite no indication of wrong doing or other warrant.
3) There is nothing to stop weapons from being bought in adjoining states and then brought in illegally by criminals.
4) There are many other things that would be effective at stemming the violence. Why not use this time to push forward proactive and meaningful measures?
5) At least two of these alleged perpetrators (Maurice Clemmons and David Crable) did not have the legal right to own firearms of any kind, so why is more legislation on gun ownership the answer? How about better enforcement of existing laws?
6) From the Washington State Constitution (accessed 1/13/2010 from http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx): "SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired". This explicitly states that the possession of firearms for purposes of self defense is enshrined in our state constitution. Thus restricting firearms to be possessed only for sport or hunting is against our state constitution.
I would be fully supportive of legislative measures that sought to get to the root of the violence and crime. How about bills to better fund our police? How about bills to better track violent offenders (like Maurice Clemmons)? What about legal safe guards on preventing guns from getting into the hands of felons (like Maurice Clemmons) and people with a history of domestic violence (like David Crable)? Laws already exist to restrict these men from having firearms. Why do we think more restrictive ownership laws would slow them down?
Unless you propose to make illegal all firearms, and then figure out how to get all of the present firearms legal and otherwise out of circulation, limiting the types of guns available for sale, legally, in Washington State is useless. It will merely limit law abiding citizens in what firearms they can buy and possess.
I would like to sit down and talk with you about my concerns. I know you must have a busy schedule but I would love the opportunity to understand your view point on this issue. It is a complex problem and I will admit that perhaps I am missing something that would make this bill useful and effective. If you could find 15 minutes to talk with me that would go a long way to restoring some of my faith in our representative democracy. I would be happy to meet anytime, anywhere in the greater western Washington Area.
Sincerely,
Lev
imported post
Some people here may flame you for some of your beliefs, I hope not, your letter and opinions just show how diverse the pro-gun ownership segment of the population is.
I think your letter shows that you support the legislator in most areas, but that they crossed a line with this one by infringing on non-criminals rights, and by passing a bill that would accomplish largely nothing to restrict/stop violent gun related crimes - and you did a dang good job of spelling that out!
*sidenote on the topic*
I am a newb member, but other than writing my reps, I def will be in Olympia the day this thing gets discussed, I have never met any of you in person yet, but I will if you guys meet up for this one!
Some people here may flame you for some of your beliefs, I hope not, your letter and opinions just show how diverse the pro-gun ownership segment of the population is.
I think your letter shows that you support the legislator in most areas, but that they crossed a line with this one by infringing on non-criminals rights, and by passing a bill that would accomplish largely nothing to restrict/stop violent gun related crimes - and you did a dang good job of spelling that out!
*sidenote on the topic*
I am a newb member, but other than writing my reps, I def will be in Olympia the day this thing gets discussed, I have never met any of you in person yet, but I will if you guys meet up for this one!
swatspyder
Regular Member
imported post
The NRA is fully aware of the bill.
Dear Mr. DeFilippis,
Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA. A group of four State Senators has introduced Senate Bill 6396, legislation that would bring California-style gun-control to the Northwest and ultimately ban many semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by Washingtonians.
This legislation would establish far-reaching restrictions on semi-automatic firearms (dubbing them "assault weapons") and ammunition magazines. SB6396 affects every firearm modified to conform with the now-extinct Clinton Gun-Ban plus many other semi-automatic firearms that have no lineage to those rifles or any military-style orientation whatsoever.
Like the failed Clinton Gun-Ban that sunset in 2004, this bill is about demonizing certain firearms based on how they look, not about crime fighting. This gun ban scheme will only punish law-abiding citizens and will do nothing to curb crime or keep criminals from obtaining firearms illegally. This is simply another attack on our Second Amendment rights in Washington State.
Please contact both of your State Representatives and your State Senator TODAY at 800-562-6000 and politely urge them to oppose SB6396. More contact information for your legislators can be found here.
You can see our update here:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=5293
Please don't hesitate to contact us with further question or concerns.
Best Regards,
Miranda Bond
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
www.nraila.org
The NRA is fully aware of the bill.
Dear Mr. DeFilippis,
Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA. A group of four State Senators has introduced Senate Bill 6396, legislation that would bring California-style gun-control to the Northwest and ultimately ban many semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by Washingtonians.
This legislation would establish far-reaching restrictions on semi-automatic firearms (dubbing them "assault weapons") and ammunition magazines. SB6396 affects every firearm modified to conform with the now-extinct Clinton Gun-Ban plus many other semi-automatic firearms that have no lineage to those rifles or any military-style orientation whatsoever.
Like the failed Clinton Gun-Ban that sunset in 2004, this bill is about demonizing certain firearms based on how they look, not about crime fighting. This gun ban scheme will only punish law-abiding citizens and will do nothing to curb crime or keep criminals from obtaining firearms illegally. This is simply another attack on our Second Amendment rights in Washington State.
Please contact both of your State Representatives and your State Senator TODAY at 800-562-6000 and politely urge them to oppose SB6396. More contact information for your legislators can be found here.
You can see our update here:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=5293
Please don't hesitate to contact us with further question or concerns.
Best Regards,
Miranda Bond
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
www.nraila.org