Site Notices
9/18/2014 11:03:27 AM
  Previous Page
Page:  / 14
Author
Message
Ranb
Offline
Posts: 212
Feedback: 0% (0)
Posted: 11/30/2011 5:34:04 PM
[Last Edit: 1/31/2013 6:15:46 PM by Ranb]
Now is the time to start talking to your Representatives in Olympia about the SBS / SBR bills. Hearings are being scheduled and we do not want to miss the opportunity to get our bill into committee and passed along for a vote. In 2010 there were 4700 bills sponsored, almost 1000 of them were allowed a vote on the House and Senate floors with greater than 90% passing.

Knowing this, a committee chairman is not going to give any bill a hearing unless he is told it is a priority and thinks it will pass a vote on the House and Senate floor. Pedersen was very blunt about this when I discussed the silencer bill with him a few years ago. Senator Kline is just as picky when it comes to what bills are allowed a hearing also. When we write to these men we must be brief, factual, polite and precise.

Here are the bills; 2099 (SBS and SBR) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2099&year=2011 and 2098 (SBR’s only) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2098&year=2011

Here are bill SBS bill sponsors;
Representatives Blake, Kretz, Hurst, Liias, Orcutt, Dunshee, Taylor, Van De Wege, Shea, Kirby, Short, Takko, Moscoso, Tharinger, Finn, Seaquist, Schmick, Sells, Ahern, Condotta, McCoy, Hope, Moeller, Goodman, McCune

Find your Rep here; http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx Here are the Representatives pages; http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/Pages/default.aspx

If your Representative is a sponsor, write and thank them for their support. If your Representative is not on this list then they will most likely need to be educated about the merits of the bills.

Back in 1994 WA State passed their own version of the crime bill just as the federal government did. But unlike the feds, Olympia deleted the AWB portion of the 97 page bill. Like the 1994 federal crime bill, Washington State’s crime bill (2319-1994) contained provisions for increased spending and law enforcement intended reduce crime. It had a lengthy portion called the “legislative intent” which described the reasons why the bill was needed. The bill claimed that the media reported gun crime as “epidemic”. Bill 2319 did not mention SBS and SBR except to say that they were legal at the federal level and that they were not banned by state law. Nowhere did the bill claim that SBS/SBR’s were involved in any violent crime at all.

As you should know, all legally possessed SBS and SBR are registered, including those owned by the police and military. Therefore the only SBS and SBR owned in WA were registered in accordance with federal law. The law as it was amended only affected people who wished to own registered SBS and SBR in Washington State in the future and those who already owned them and wished to sell them to other unlicensed WA residents. It had little effect on criminals who owned unregistered sawed off rifles and shotguns. Using them to commit a crime was already illegal and if the state wanted to prosecute a criminal for possession of an unregistered sawed off shotgun, all they had to do was turn them over to the feds.

In other words, bill 2319 only targeted the law abiding person who paid the $200 tax and passed the FBI background check prior to making or buying his SBS or SBR.

Here is why bill 2098 should be passed into law.

The bill only eliminates the July 1, 1994 registration deadline; possession of unregistered SBS and SBR will still remain illegal.
This will bring state law into line with federal law.
Possession of an unregistered SBS and SBR has been prohibited at the federal level since 1934.
Short barreled shotguns and rifles are just as useful to the sportsman as their full sized counterparts.
Small businesses will benefit by increased sales to residents as authorized by the BATFE.
There is very little crime associated with sawed off shotguns and short barreled rifles in WA compared to other firearms
Most of the illegal unregistered SBS and SBR seized by the police were not involved in a violent crime.
There are no evidence that any legally owned and registered SBS or SBR are involved in any violent crime in Washington State.

Chances are that your Democrat Representative will say this is a Republican issue, but is it not. Some of the bill sponsors are Democrats.

If they do not come out in support of the bill, ask them for a meeting to discuss the merits of the bill. While meeting a Rep or Senator can be a bit daunting the first time you do it, it is actually an easy thing to do. I am willing to go with anyone to a meeting within 100 miles of Seattle. I have met with Representatives Pedersen, Haigh and Finn in person and talked to Senator Sheldon on the phone. While I am not an expert lobbyist, I know how to educate a person on firearms. A face to face meeting can mean the difference between a “I’ll think about it” response from a Rep and them becoming a bill sponsor. A face to face meeting is worth 100 letters and 1000 e-mails.


Here are the legislators that voted in favor on the SBS SBR ban back in 1994.

Senator Tracey Eide (While in House of Representatives)
Senator Tim Sheldon
Senator Lisa Brown (While in House of Representatives)
Senator Paull Shin
Senator Karen Fraser
Senator Jim Hargrove
Senator Rosemary McAuliffe
Senator Margarita Prentice

I wrote to all of them to ask why they supported the ban. Only Senator Sheldon responded. He gave me the answer I completely expected to hear. He had no idea why the ban was included in the bill. As the bill was a very lengthy document, it is not surprising that a few "unacceptable" provisions were allowed to remain as to allow passage of a bill they felt was needed very badly.

Senator Sheldon also said he supported the bills that would allow possession of SBS and SBR's. As the other Senators were not in my district, I was not expecting a reply, and I did not get any.

For those of you who are in their districts, please write to them. When you do, ask them to tell you what they hoped to gain by banning possession of registered SBS and SBR by those who would otherwise be able to obtain BATFE authorization to own them. Ask if they were aware of any crimes committed by the legal owners of these firearms; chances are they have never heard of any crimes associated with legally possessed SBS and SBR. Ask them how keeping future purchases of registered SBS and SBR illegal will help WA if they are still allowed to be possessed by those who owned them prior to July 1, 1994.

Chances are that they will have no idea why SBS and SBR were banned back in 1994. But it would be interesting to see their replies to the other questions. If they give you a BS reply like "those are illegal in the USA" or “only criminals use them", ask them for evidence to support their claims.

You do not need to be interested in short barreled shotguns or short barreled rifles to be affected by this bill. Convincing Olympia that all legal firearms in the country should be permitted in our state will go a long way towards establishing gun owners as a force to be reckoned with. Thank you

Randy Bragge
360 440 5889
1GUNRUNNER
Motivational Speaker
Offline
Posts: 49084
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:33:06 PM
Or you could have just posted in the other thread.
"You can watch things happen, you can make things happen, or you can wonder what the fuck just happened." ~ Phil Harris RIP

www.shootersnorthwest.com
AMESO
Offline
Posts: 4072
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:56:40 PM
This one works. The other one wasn't specifically about SBR's.
Boom_Stick
I produce freedom in mass quantities
Military
Offline
Posts: 10160
Feedback: 100% (10)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/30/2011 7:04:28 PM
Originally Posted By AMESO:
This one works. The other one wasn't specifically about SBR's.

So this is a new bill? Did the previous one get loaded down with pork?
AKs are for third world villagers who have to be reminded not to $hit in the well water.

كافر
mzevenb3596
Offline
Posts: 48
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/30/2011 7:40:48 PM
Just wrote to my reps. Looks like one of them is a sponsor, that makes me feel good about voting for him.
Getnlwr
2nd most disliked person in the WAHTF
Offline
Posts: 5296
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/30/2011 8:07:01 PM
Originally Posted By Ranb:

The bill only eliminates the July 1, 1994 registration deadline; possession of unregistered SBS and SBR will still remain illegal.
This will bring state law into line with federal law.
Possession of an unregistered SBS and SBR has been prohibited at the federal level since 1934.
Short barreled shotguns and rifles are just as useful to the sportsman as their full sized counterparts.
Small businesses will benefit by increased sales to residents as authorized by the BATFE.
There is very little crime associated with sawed off shotguns and short barreled rifles in WA compared to other firearms
Most of the illegal unregistered SBS and SBR seized by the police were not involved in a violent crime.
There are no registered SBS or SBR involved in any violent crime in Washington State.



I think this needs clarification in how it's written.

Most, and NO are two words as used create a somewhat contradictory explanation.
Prepping for survival isn't about how to have the most complex, drawn out tactical gunfight, it's about how to live such that a gunfight never occurs.
WA-Tom
Offline
Posts: 2100
Feedback: 100% (59)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/30/2011 8:45:07 PM
To arms! To arms! Thanks Randy, sounds like its time to start paying close attention again. I will post an update on Facebooks N.F.A. Page.
Ranb
Offline
Posts: 213
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/30/2011 9:35:40 PM
[Last Edit: 11/30/2011 10:10:01 PM by Ranb]
Originally Posted By Getnlwr:
Originally Posted By Ranb:
Most of the illegal unregistered SBS and SBR seized by the police were not involved in a violent crime.
There are no registered SBS or SBR involved in any violent crime in Washington State.



I think this needs clarification in how it's written.

Most, and NO are two words as used create a somewhat contradictory explanation.


I changed that sentence to read; There is no evidence that any legally owned and registered SBS or SBR are involved in any violent crime in Washington State.

I wrote to every sheriff in the state requesting data on SBS and SBR crime. The responses I got back show a total of 43 crimes associated with SBS/SBR. Two were SBR, the rest SBS. Of the SBS crime, three involved a suicide, an assault and a burglary. The other incidents were mere possession with no violent activity involved. Based upon the number of cases reported I was able to calculate 14 SBS/SBR crimes each year for the entire state This is a preliminary summary; I will have the responses scanned and ready for anyone to review next week sometime.

I thought saying most SBS/SBR seized were not involved in violent crime and none were registered was a good brief summary. The key words are "unregistered" and "registered". There is no way we are going to get our SBS/SBR back if the seized firearms were registered and used in violent crime. It is important that we make a distinction between the two types. What would you suggest?

Ranb
Ranb
Offline
Posts: 214
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/30/2011 9:37:23 PM
[Last Edit: 11/30/2011 10:05:57 PM by Ranb]
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Or you could have just posted in the other thread.


I searched for a recent SBS/SBR thread but did not see it.

Ranb

Edited to add; Opps, I found it. I even posted on the thread. :)
iRidiculous
Beat Obama with a Cain! (Or a Newt...)
NRA
Offline
Posts: 1055
Feedback: 100% (11)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/1/2011 1:57:30 AM
R-32
Member
Offline
Posts: 27718
Feedback: 100% (11)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/2/2011 5:28:23 PM
Strong work on your part.

I will get an Email fired off tonight.
AMESO
Offline
Posts: 4073
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/3/2011 1:23:17 AM

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Originally Posted By AMESO:
This one works. The other one wasn't specifically about SBR's.

So this is a new bill? Did the previous one get loaded down with pork?

Same set of bills drawn up at the end of the last session. No pork, as Blake is keeping these bills plane and simple.
rbenji298
Offline
Posts: 124
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/4/2011 10:53:34 PM
Links to the bills are hot.

Thanks for the information and your hard work on this, Ranb!


#2099 - SBR and SBS

#2098 - SBR only
mstennes
Offline
Posts: 5563
Feedback: 98% (49)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/6/2011 11:14:50 PM
Originally Posted By R-32:
Strong work on your part.

I will get an Email fired off tonight.


Ditto
surfj9009
Offline
Posts: 89
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/10/2011 1:02:54 PM
I wrote my two reps(one is a co-sponsor), and my senator today.
1GUNRUNNER
Motivational Speaker
Offline
Posts: 49208
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/10/2011 3:38:43 PM
Anyone want to share a boilerplate email we can use?
"You can watch things happen, you can make things happen, or you can wonder what the fuck just happened." ~ Phil Harris RIP

www.shootersnorthwest.com
mstennes
Offline
Posts: 5572
Feedback: 98% (49)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/11/2011 5:58:05 PM
Originally Posted By rbenji298:
Links to the bills are hot.

Thanks for the information and your hard work on this, Ranb!


#2099 - SBR and SBS

#2098 - SBR only


I would like to see 2099 make it, but from talking with a few friends, they feel that 2098 has a better chance, just for the simple reason that that SBS's conjure up images of sawed of shotguns in the minds of the gun haters. Thanks Hollywood!
WA-Tom
Offline
Posts: 2111
Feedback: 100% (59)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/11/2011 9:13:23 PM
I will take a stab at an e-mail we can circulate if you think it will help. Just keep in mind I am not an attourney or a proffesional lobbyist nor do I play one on TV.
Getnlwr
2nd most disliked person in the WAHTF
Offline
Posts: 5308
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/12/2011 3:55:18 AM
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Originally Posted By rbenji298:
Links to the bills are hot.

Thanks for the information and your hard work on this, Ranb!


#2099 - SBR and SBS

#2098 - SBR only


I would like to see 2099 make it, but from talking with a few friends, they feel that 2098 has a better chance, just for the simple reason that that SBS's conjure up images of sawed of shotguns in the minds of the gun haters. Thanks Hollywood!


It would be nice to have either... but I want all of our rights restored to the pre-libtard era.
Prepping for survival isn't about how to have the most complex, drawn out tactical gunfight, it's about how to live such that a gunfight never occurs.
Rogue-Sasquatch
Akimbo Pixelslinger
Offline
Posts: 9257
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/12/2011 12:19:29 PM
Somewhere, I would include mention that shorter-barreled hunting firearms are extremely suited to and useful in the unique, dense forests of Western Washington.
You know, I've been here for aqua-bumpers, shower cookies, goose fuckers, doll shows, fire on airplanes, and the attempted theft of an AR by Shitty McBritches, and this post is the one that's finally made me say, "This place is getting weird." -53
mstennes
Offline
Posts: 5573
Feedback: 98% (49)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/12/2011 1:45:31 PM
Originally Posted By Getnlwr:
Originally Posted By mstennes:
Originally Posted By rbenji298:
Links to the bills are hot.

Thanks for the information and your hard work on this, Ranb!


#2099 - SBR and SBS

#2098 - SBR only


I would like to see 2099 make it, but from talking with a few friends, they feel that 2098 has a better chance, just for the simple reason that that SBS's conjure up images of sawed of shotguns in the minds of the gun haters. Thanks Hollywood!


It would be nice to have either... but I want all of our rights restored to the pre-libtard era.


]I agree 100%

AMESO
Offline
Posts: 4079
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/12/2011 3:14:03 PM
Does anyone know someone who currently owns a legal SBR, since they were legal to own prior to 1994? (Excluding SOT's who can make them)
Ranb
Offline
Posts: 222
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/12/2011 3:14:24 PM
Here is a copy of the letter I sent one of my representatives.

I would like to thank you for your support when you sponsored bill 1016 to allow us to use our registered suppressors. It has enhanced my firearm collection and I enjoy using them very much.

I would like to ask for your support for House bill 2099. As you might know, back in 1994 when the federal government was busy passing their own crime bill and assault weapons ban, Olympia had their own version in the form of House Bill 2319-1994. This lengthy bill contained numerous provisions intended to reduce crime including an assault weapon ban and a ban on the new ownership of short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns. While the assault weapons ban was removed from the final version of bill 2319, the ban on short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns remained.

Short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns are legally similar to suppressors as they can only be possessed by those authorized by the BATFE and the same $200 tax is paid by any unlicensed person who wants to make or own them. Just as I did with suppressors, I wrote to each county requesting data on crimes associated with short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns.

Only nineteen counties responded to my request for information. Sixteen of those counties responded with information. Three counties said they were not able to search for the specific information requested. Forty-three crimes were reported of which two were short barreled rifles and forty-one were short barreled shotguns. These crimes included one suicide, one assault and one burglary. The rest were mere possession or not defined. I was not able to find any evidence that any of the seized firearms were registered or legally owned. It appears that short barreled shotguns/rifles are rarely used in any violent crimes and ownership by civilians is not a threat to the public

I do not know why the legislature voted to prohibit these firearms in 1994. I wrote to the eight remaining legislators that voted for bill 2319 back in 1994, but Senator Sheldon was the only one to reply. He told me he had no idea why the ban was put into the bill so he could not tell me what the legislature hoped to gain by prohibiting future ownership of registered short barreled shotguns/rifles. Senator Sheldon also said he would vote for bill 2099 if it reaches the Senate.

Bill 2099 will bring state law into line with federal law. Unregistered short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns will remain illegal to possess by anyone but will allow possession of registered firearms by those of us who pay the $200 tax and obtain BATFE authorization.. I feel that bill 2319 only targeted law abiding Washington residents who wished to own short barreled rifles/shotguns after July 1, 1994. While many people think of short barreled shotguns as “sawed-off shotguns” that are favored by the criminal element, in reality they are merely shotguns that have a barrel less than 18 inches or are less than 26 inches overall. Short barreled shotguns are usually every bit as useful to the sportsman as their full sized counterparts. I am told that some hunters prefer to use a rifle with a short barrel while in dense forests that are typical of western Washington.

I would like to know if you will support bill 2099 or if you have any reservations about doing so. Please let me know if you need any additional information.


Feel free to use it for ideas, but do not copy it as it contains stuff of a personal nature that does not apply to other writers. Thanks.

Randy
Wombat
Cap’n 5 play
Offline
Posts: 1610
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/12/2011 4:23:11 PM
Originally Posted By AMESO:
Does anyone know someone who currently owns a legal SBR, since they were legal to own prior to 1994? (Excluding SOT's who can make them)


I know of one member here that has one.
AMESO
Offline
Posts: 4080
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/12/2011 6:12:28 PM
Thanks Wombat. Maybe you could contact them and see if they might be a willing participant in this process. Have them PM me if they are interested, please.
dr_drae
Offline
Posts: 444
Feedback: 100% (17)
Link To This Post
Posted: 12/12/2011 9:48:39 PM
Personally I think when communicating to our representatives or the public avoiding the term "sawed off" altogether is smart. It conjures images of hacksaws in garages and that's not what we're wanting as a community.
  Previous Page
Page:  / 14