Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mancat

Jay Inslee wants a WA state AWB

Recommended Posts

Our wonderful new governor elect is not even formally in office, and is already foaming at the mouth to get a state-wide AWB passed with the efforts of other state Democrats. I heard a quote on KIRO radio this morning stating that Inslee would push to introduce a state AWB, but now I cannot find any stories online sourcing this quote. I did find these gems, though:

 

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/01/11/friday-politics-dems-may-lead-some-state-senate-committees-murray-and-assault-weapons-ban/

 

State Sen. Ed Murray’s latest task. The individual who had to be most disappointed by the legislative coup was Murray. The Seattle Democrat was elected Senate majority leader by fellow Democrats, only to lose the post to Tom under the new arrangement. Murray has a new project. He committed this week to introducing a Washington state assault weapons ban.

 

 

http://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/article/jay-inslees-uphill-battle?page=0,2

 

Inslee, again the underdog, won that 1992 election. Then came the Federal Assault Weapons Ban vote in 1994. Inslee held town hall forums and asked for feedback. Ultimately, the way Inslee saw it, it came down to his job security or the life of a child.

The night before the vote, he told his wife: “Tomorrow the assault weapons ban is probably going to cost me my job.”

 

Trudi responded, “So be it.”

 

That fall, Inslee was voted out of Congress, flushed out by the Republican wave of ’94 along with five other Washington state Democrats.

 

Inslee, along with the rest of the state and national Democrats, apparently did not get the hint the first time around.

Edited by mancat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. . . I'll be rallying at the state capital this Saturday, noon. (I'm fortunate, the state capital is a figurative "stone's throw" from my residence.)

 

I've never attended a rally of any sort before. . . friggen has to be a first time for most everything, and I cannot think of anything more worthy than the "Walk Across America" pro-rights rally.

 

~Gary

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see that AWB Nullification Bill being proposed here in WA.

 

I went to the legislative page for HB 1371 (2012-2013), registered, and posted a comment in support.

 

All pro-gun Washingtonians should do the same.

Edited by Sim_Player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll look it up.

 

Not a surprise considering who supported this governor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES, the current iteration of this bill is SB 5737. Write your WA state reps NOW.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-ban-bills-three-states-including-wash-could-make-citizens-criminals?cid=db_articles

 

In addition we are also dealing with background checks (HB 1588) and "child safety" storage prosecution (HB 1676)

 

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/2/washington-your-state-legislators-must-hear-from-you-today.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOPS! Apparently they all forgot to read the bill, until someone pointed out that the bill contained an illegal search provision that would allow the police to demand entry into your home to search for banned assault weapons.

 

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

 

 

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

 

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

 

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

 

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

 

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

 

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

 

He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.

 

Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.

 

The more important thing worth noting is that we have several high-ranking representatives more or less admitting that they are too lazy to even bother reading an eight-page bill which would have incredible constitutional legal repercussions against the state, should it come to pass.

Edited by mancat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... they were fine with the bill so long as the general public didn't know what was in it, but now that it's hit the press, "Oh, someone else put that in there, it's not our fault."

 

Lying POS!

Edited by Ronin38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it is funny hearing the guy who wrote the bill saying that he didn't fully read it or know what was in it.

 

A nice comment quote from the ST article:

 

So, it turns out that Adam Kline and his cohorts have been filing the same unconstitutional gun ban and gun confiscation bill over and over again, year after year, with the same annual home inspection clause in it each time!

They can't get away with claiming their language was a "mistake", when they intentionally and deceitfully, keeping including it in the same unconstitutional bill year after year.

They are not just stupid, they are malicious.

(excerpt from 2010 version of 2013 SB 5737)
SENATE BILL 6396
_____________________________________________
State of Washington
61st Legislature
2010 Regular Session

By Senators Kline, Fairley, Kohl-Welles, and McDermott
Read first time 01/13/10. Referred to Committee on Judiciary.


(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was
17 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person
18 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
19 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of
20 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to
21 ensure compliance with this subsection;

22 (B) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or
23 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use
24 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while
25 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of
26 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the
27 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container
28 during transport.

Edited by mancat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dead serious when I say that someone needs to introduce a bill that would make it illegal to vote on a bill until you've read the GODDAMN BILL!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these guys have legislative assistants. I wanted to get that for a job at one time. Basically it is a paralegal or lawyer who meets with anyone who has a problem or a stake or an opinion on an issue. Then the assistant will try to draft a bill that makes everyone happy, and shows it around to see if it causes problems for anyone. Then the congressman looks it over and decides whether it is what he wants. The process can vary, but obviously no legislator is going to be an expert on any subject so they do a lot of delegating.

 

For a bill like this though, I am sure the process was a bit different. I am sure this guy was just generally anti gun without any real knowledge. (you can be an intelligent and informed anti who is wrong about the principles but putting real effort and thinking into getting policies in place.) So when the opportunity rises a bunch of anti- groups will hand him proposals. Then he will have his advisers guide him as to which one will be most likely to get through, or at least give him the best soapbox. Then he will just sign his name at the bottom and schedule a press conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck guys...

 

It will stop by two main methods... When your are subjects or you vote the assholes out.

 

So since it seems that the liberals in a few of your counties rule the day... Your screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck guys... It will stop by two main methods... When your are subjects or you vote the assholes out. So since it seems that the liberals in a few of your counties rule the day... Your screwed.

No, we are not "screwed" at all. This has to be taken seriously but this is not New York or California. I've been watching this closely. It ain't gonna happen. They just had to water down a bill to allow more background checks just to give it a chance of passing. There is a lot of sabre rattling going on but there will be no AWB in Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck guys... It will stop by two main methods... When your are subjects or you vote the assholes out. So since it seems that the liberals in a few of your counties rule the day... Your screwed.

No, we are not "screwed" at all. This has to be taken seriously but this is not New York or California. I've been watching this closely. It ain't gonna happen. They just had to water down a bill to allow more background checks just to give it a chance of passing. There is a lot of sabre rattling going on but there will be no AWB in Washington.

 

I truly hope you're not. A water down a bill is called compromise and they will ultimately compromise and legislate you into being screwed.

 

Same strategy as the national approach. Go for a massive ban and far reaching enactments, knowing they'd never pass but them give up and compromise down to background checks for everyone. Seems reasonable since you want to protect the children right? They will give "conservatives" a victory and claim they are not anti-gun. They know you can't do background checks without some form of record keeping.. Thinly vailed as passive registration.

 

Then the next "crisis" and the next compromise and the ruling elite politicians on both sides will sell us down the river.

 

Pessimistic.. No.. Realistic. It's been going on since W Wilson and his regime during the early 1900's.

 

I truly hope you guys fight and NOTHING is passed and help set an example for the rest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck guys... It will stop by two main methods... When your are subjects or you vote the assholes out. So since it seems that the liberals in a few of your counties rule the day... Your screwed.

 

there is a third method........and it is what the 2nd amendment is all about.......hopefully never to become a part of american history......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, I received a personal, positive response from Rep Jan Angel. Breath of fresh air to receive something that at least appears to be genuine and not form-fed.

 

 

Jeff - I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment as well. Right now there are so many gun bills floating around here that our cutoff is next Friday 2/22. If a committee has not heard the bill and/or passed it out of committee, the bill is dead. Soooo I am awaiting to see what actually surfaces - -then we will go to work on them before they get to the House Floor. Thank you for your input -it is always appreciated.

Have a good weekend,

Jan

 

 

And a slightly more generic response from Sen. Schlicher

 

 

Thank you Jeff for your email. I want you to know that I support the rights of law abiding citizens to own and bear arms. As an emergency medicine doctor that has seen the effect of gun violence on so many, I have to believe that there is something that can be done. I support a reasonable balanced approach and will evaluate each bill as it progresses to the senate floor to ensure that it does not infringe upon the rights of legal gun owners. As it stands now, I do not believe I will be supporting SB 5737.
Edited by mancat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well where are we going to shoot at??  Actually I am going to a friend's house thursday who has a range right off his driveway. Don't have to carry stuff, just open the back of the truck. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×