4/2 SB 5956 Signed! - Page 2

Hometown » Washington

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 4/2 SB 5956 Signed! (Page 2 of 23)

Posted: 8/15/2013 11:03:46 AM EDT

[#1]

Thank you guys for all your hard work on this.

Posted: 8/15/2013 6:50:30 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
Thank you guys for all your hard work on this.

View Quote

RanB is the star quarterback on all this. I just try and email when I can to keep the buzz in their ears that we still want this and haven't forgotten about it.

Posted: 9/10/2013 6:06:28 PM EDT

[#3]

Several weeks ago i sent out +45 e-mails and got about 8 replies. Senator Hobb's aide (Lake Stevens) just called me on the phone to say that he might sponsor the bill.

Yesterday I mailed 41 letters to the Senators that did not reply to my e-mails. At 46 cents each that was $18.86 well spent. Lobbying is cheap until one takes time off from work to sit down and talk to these guys which is what some of us will have to do. It took me at least three hours to carefully craft a short simple but informative letter to these people; time well spent.

The more Democrats we got on board the better. If we can get the Democrats living in the urban areas of Seattle and Olympia, then all the better.

Randy

Posted: 9/12/2013 12:03:24 PM EDT

[#4]

I'm not very active on this forum, but I wanted to post up that I appreciate your efforts, am following this thread, and have contacted my local reps here in Seattle proper...

Posted: 9/26/2013 5:56:39 PM EDT

[#5]

I've been told that Senator Roach will not support an SBR bill. Timing, politics and the Gov are her reasons. Sounds like the same BS I was always hearing about the silencer bill back in 2009 and 2010 before it passed in 2011. Roach refused to support the silencer bill early on also.

Does anyone here live near Aubrun (31st district?). She hasn't responded to my letter and we need someone in her district to speak with her. Thanks.

Randy

Posted: 9/30/2013 1:34:01 PM EDT

[#6]

I talked to Senator Padden's aide this morning. He said that the Senator is considering sponsorship and scheduling the bill for a hearing for the 2014 session. If he gets much more encouragement it might change from considering to outright support.

Randy

Posted: 9/30/2013 5:19:51 PM EDT

[#7]

A lot of us now are focused on the ATF proposal 41P. If it goes into effect a bunch of Washingtonians will be screwed regardless if we get SBRs legal at the state level.

ETA: I'm not saying I don't appreciate your work. I'm just getting a little pissed off at all the angles they take to come at us

Posted: 10/1/2013 10:52:44 AM EDT

[#8]

I'm only asking that people make a phone call or send a letter. I am also involved to some extent in the new CFR affecting title ii fireams but this doesn't stop me from working to restore the right to own guns in WA we might have more trouble owning in the future due to federal regulation changes.

Randy

Posted: 10/2/2013 11:03:15 AM EDT

[#9]

Tag! We're thinking about moving from KC to Seattle in the next couple of years, and this was my biggest sticking point since I'm about to get my first SBR approved around November. We've had people active in politics in KS just like Randy is being and we can own just about anything here now. Thanks Randy!

Posted: 10/4/2013 2:47:18 PM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
I talked to Senator Padden's aide this morning. He said that the Senator is considering sponsorship and scheduling the bill for a hearing for the 2014 session. If he gets much more encouragement it might change from considering to outright support.
Randy

View Quote

I called Padden's office this morning to encourage him to sponsor the bill, sounds like he's not quite there yet. I'll write a letter to follow up.

Thanks for your hard work Randy

Posted: 10/4/2013 4:38:46 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
A lot of us now are focused on the ATF proposal 41P. If it goes into effect a bunch of Washingtonians will be screwed regardless if we get SBRs legal at the state level.

ETA: I'm not saying I don't appreciate your work. I'm just getting a little pissed off at all the angles they take to come at us

View Quote

Could you elaborate on this ATF proposal?

Posted: 10/4/2013 4:44:38 PM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

Could you elaborate on this ATF proposal?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
A lot of us now are focused on the ATF proposal 41P. If it goes into effect a bunch of Washingtonians will be screwed regardless if we get SBRs legal at the state level.

ETA: I'm not saying I don't appreciate your work. I'm just getting a little pissed off at all the angles they take to come at us

Could you elaborate on this ATF proposal?

There's an ongoing thread in the class three forum. Basically the big gripe is ATF wants to close the trust "loophole" (not a loophole) by making CLEO signoff mandatory for trusts. That screws people who cant get a CLEO.

Posted: 10/4/2013 4:49:31 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

There's an ongoing thread in the class three forum. Basically the big gripe is ATF wants to close the trust "loophole" (not a loophole) by making CLEO signoff mandatory for trusts. That screws people who cant get a CLEO.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
A lot of us now are focused on the ATF proposal 41P. If it goes into effect a bunch of Washingtonians will be screwed regardless if we get SBRs legal at the state level.

ETA: I'm not saying I don't appreciate your work. I'm just getting a little pissed off at all the angles they take to come at us

Could you elaborate on this ATF proposal?

There's an ongoing thread in the class three forum. Basically the big gripe is ATF wants to close the trust "loophole" (not a loophole) by making CLEO signoff mandatory for trusts. That screws people who cant get a CLEO.

oh that one. That would be frustrating to get SBR's then lose the "loophole" (not a loophole)

Posted: 10/5/2013 8:44:33 PM EDT

[#14]

With your influence it would be nice to test the waters and see how receptive they would be to a bill forcing compliance of the CLEO's for NFA processing/sign off.

Posted: 10/6/2013 4:04:34 AM EDT

[#15]

Thanks for the effort you are putting into this!!! I will call / email my Rep for the hell of it

Posted: 10/6/2013 11:55:36 AM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
With your influence it would be nice to test the waters and see how receptive they would be to a bill forcing compliance of the CLEO's for NFA processing/sign off.

View Quote

I don't think I have much influence, that is why I rarely get the attention of legislators that are not in my district. THIS IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE INTERESTED IN OWNING A GUN TO TALK OR WRITE TO THEIR LEGISLATORS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

I have been thinking of hitting up my Senator to sponsor a bill that is like the one TN has requiring the sheriff to sign ATF forms for anyone who can own a gun.

Ranb

Posted: 10/10/2013 4:08:15 PM EDT

[#17]

I know I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but I just emailed my Senator (Kirk Pearson) about support for a bill in the Senate. I know he's on board with an SBR bill. I spoke with him in Jan about similar issues, and he is definitely one of the good guys. I'll let you know what I hear back. If it's not too late hopefully I can get a sit down with him if you're still up for it RanB.

Posted: 10/10/2013 11:49:13 PM EDT

[#18]

You're not late at all. The bill does not yet exist; it should be out in November.

Randy

Posted: 10/11/2013 6:19:07 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
I know I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but I just emailed my Senator (Kirk Pearson) about support for a bill in the Senate. I know he's on board with an SBR bill. I spoke with him in Jan about similar issues, and he is definitely one of the good guys. I'll let you know what I hear back. If it's not too late hopefully I can get a sit down with him if you're still up for it RanB.

View Quote

Here is the first email i got back form pearson, well his assistant, i sent a reply email with more info, facts and contact info and never heard back, but this was about 2 months ago, and just sent another email back to them...

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for contacting Sen. Pearson about HB 1561. I was able to discuss it with him a bit this morning.

We notice that it had broad bi-partisan sponsorship in the House, it is unfortunate that it didn’t receive a hearing.

He hasn’t yet decided what bills he would like to prime sponsor for next year’s session, he usually makes those decisions in the fall of the year once all the ideas and requests have come in. He asked me to keep note of the bill in his files for possible sponsorship so that we can discuss it further when he is making those decisions. In the meantime, is there any more information about this that you can provide to me? He’s a shotgun guy, and I’m mainly a handgun guy, so we aren’t familiar with short barreled rifles.

Thank you!
Cameron

Posted: 10/11/2013 7:53:06 AM EDT

[#20]

What info did you give him?

Posted: 10/11/2013 2:05:22 PM EDT

[#21]

I just got off the phone with somebody from Rep. Dan Kristiansen's office who is a sponsor of this bill.

She was telling me the biggest hurdle is Jamie Pedersen who has control over whether or not this bill gets a hearing. Apparently he was the one who wouldn't allow bill 2099 in 2011 to be heard.

If you are in his district letting him know how you feel would be the thing to do.

She didn't want to put words in his mouth by saying this is his stance, but implied he would be willing to let the bill have a hearing if the background check law they are pushing for is allowed. At least that is my understanding of what she meant.

She referenced this article http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020439372_gungrassrootsxml.html more than once as far as who is our opposition in this.

Posted: 10/11/2013 3:59:30 PM EDT

[#22]

Same here with regard to Sen. Pearson. I haven't heard back, so I might send him another email.

As far as Pederson is concerned. I remember the last time we tried getting him to allow a hearing on it it didn't matter how many times he was contacted by constituents. He won't allow it to have a hearing unless he thinks it will pass (RanB knows the particulars, but that's what I understand happened in this last session). Which is why we need something to get rolling in the Senate.

I'll shoot another email to Pearson, hopefully we can get him to sponsor it. From past conversations with his office he's definitely on our side.

Posted: 10/11/2013 4:41:41 PM EDT

[#23]

So I just heard back from Cameron (one of Sen. Pearson's aides I've spoken with before). I'll just post the letter here for you guys to read. Looks like some good news, and some good movement on a Senate bill:

Mr. Jeubacca,

Thank you for your email to Senator Pearson. I will get it to him this afternoon.

He is aware of the Short Barreled Rifle bill and has had some discussions about it. We are told that a companion bill will be introduced into the Senate in the next session. As Sen. Pearson has always been a very strong advocate for our Second Amendment freedoms we are certainly interested in seeing what the House Judiciary Chair does with the bill as the issue moves forward.

Sincerely,
Cameron

Posted: 10/11/2013 5:14:03 PM EDT

[#24]

I heard from Kirk Pearson's office today and was told he supports any bill that would support the 2nd amendment.

Like you said he has heard from multiple people Pedersen is probably going to give it a hearing.

Posted: 10/24/2013 4:04:20 PM EDT

[#25]

First, I commend everybody residing in the State of Washington who are working on this issue.

I know its not a popular subject, but it's somethingt that will make libtards feel better about SBRs... Sell this as another line of a federal "in-depth" backgound check and that this is far-far different than simply going to a local store and picking up a class I firearm. "I," IMHO, think that most, if not all, libs would love the fact that now that this single firearm(s) is on an enforcable NFA roster and subject to inspection by the ATF... Also, they would love the fact that the government will not only have that firearm's info on file, but your fingerprints, photo and bio as well.

This is a suckie way of selling it, but its just an ideal AND for me, I don't care what the government knows about me.

BTW, I'm in Alaska, but was born and raised in Washington and will be returning next year for good. Plus, I would love to SBR my HK-94, Uzi Carbine, Sterling Carbine and my Colt 9mm AR as well!!

Posted: 11/3/2013 1:04:34 AM EDT

[#26]

Senator Pam Roach called me today and said she would co-sponsor the Senate SBR bill.

She also mentioned something about Representative Pedersen moving away from the Judiciary committee. Anyone know anything about this?

Ranb

Posted: 11/3/2013 3:05:52 AM EDT

[#27]

Uhm, awesome!

Posted: 11/3/2013 9:28:36 AM EDT

[#28]

So does that mean there will be a bill to legalize SBRs presented this month?

If so, will it be posted online for us to read? What's the best way for us to drive support for the bill?

Posted: 11/3/2013 10:19:21 AM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
Senator Pam Roach called me today and said she would co-sponsor the Senate SBR bill.

She also mentioned something about Representative Pedersen moving away from the Judiciary committee. Anyone know anything about this?

Ranb

View Quote

Based on her responses to letters and emails over the last year regarding the numerous anti-gun bills, I think this may be a good thing. She seems to be very supportive of gun ownership. She also responded with non-canned replies despite the fact that I'm not in her district. I'm in support of this plan!

Posted: 11/3/2013 7:53:38 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
So does that mean there will be a bill to legalize SBRs presented this month?

If so, will it be posted online for us to read? What's the best way for us to drive support for the bill?

View Quote

Bills can be pre-filed in November for the 2014 session starting in January. Here is a link for pre-filed bills. Pre-filed bills

When the bill is filed you can also read about its progress here; bill information by searching for it.

Whether or not there is a bill we can look at this month depends upon Senator Hatfield.

Randy

Posted: 11/3/2013 10:45:52 PM EDT

[#31]

Thank you for taking the time to keep us up to date on the biz that's going on.

Posted: 11/4/2013 4:54:15 PM EDT

[#32]

As others have said, MANY thanks for what you're doing! I really hope this all works out.

Posted: 11/5/2013 1:06:30 AM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:

Based on her responses to letters and emails over the last year regarding the numerous anti-gun bills, I think this may be a good thing. She seems to be very supportive of gun ownership. She also responded with non-canned replies despite the fact that I'm not in her district. I'm in support of this plan!

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Senator Pam Roach called me today and said she would co-sponsor the Senate SBR bill.

She also mentioned something about Representative Pedersen moving away from the Judiciary committee. Anyone know anything about this?

Ranb

Based on her responses to letters and emails over the last year regarding the numerous anti-gun bills, I think this may be a good thing. She seems to be very supportive of gun ownership. She also responded with non-canned replies despite the fact that I'm not in her district. I'm in support of this plan!

Agree with this. My wife and I both got different non canned response from her about gun control earlier in the year and we aren't in her area!!

Posted: 11/5/2013 6:20:01 PM EDT

[#34]

I'm a WA resident who is thinking of getting a firearm and I had no idea that SBRs were not legal here until recently.

I read over the changes proposed (HB1561 - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1561.pdf ) and I really think it needs to be revised.

Now I am not a lawyer, but in my reading of this law it would still be illegal to manufacture an SBR in WA state or to possess SBR parts (short barrels). The revised law reads (in part):

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to possess, transport, acquire, or transfer a short-barreled rifle that is legally registered and possessed, transported, acquired, or transferred in accordance with federal law.

Section 2 was added, which effectively nulls the law for possession, transport, and transfer of a legal SBR. But Section 1 is much broader - as it bans manufacturing of an SBR (which is VERY important) and possession/sale/etc of SBR components.

It seems to me that the correct course of legal action would be to change the wording to just remove "short-barreled rifles" from section 1.

Thoughts?

Posted: 11/5/2013 10:25:19 PM EDT

[#35]

That will probably not happen as the state wants to keep contraband SBR/SBS illegal.

RCW 9.41 doesn't define a manufacturer, but anyone who does manufacture an SBR in the United States is required to obtain a license from the BATFE to do so. This is different than making an SBR on an ATF form 1. But you do make a good point. It would be good to have the bill say, "manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control".

Ranb

Posted: 11/6/2013 1:07:47 AM EDT

[#36]

Is there a definition of manufacture in the RCW that might be problematic? WA and the US could use different definitions.

Also, are there any election results that have an impact on any of this?

Posted: 11/6/2013 1:46:54 PM EDT

[#37]

Reading all this legal stuff makes me so annoyed. lol

Lets start with RCW 9.41.0.10 - the section which goes over definitions... and lets see some nonsense:

(15) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.

View Quote

Sweet! "SBRs" are classified as pistols in WA state!!

(12) "Loaded" means:
(b) Cartridges are in a clip that is locked in place in the firearm;

View Quote

Clips don't attach to firearms - MAGAZINES do. So in the state of WA, maybe you can have a loaded magazine in your weapon and it will not be classified as loaded?

(16) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

View Quote

Besides the double-up of "designed or redesigned, made or remade" - why the requirement of a "fixed metallic cartridge" and "rifled bore"? Guns using case-less ammo are no longer rifles! Also if you make a rifle with a smooth-bore, it's not a rifle either!

Anyway... Here is what I propose for RCW 9.41.190 - my changes in bold:

(1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.

(2) This section shall not apply to:

(a) Any peace officer in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty, or to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty; or

(b) A person, including an employee of such person if the employee has undergone fingerprinting and a background check, who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles:

(i) To be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States;

(ii) To be used or purchased by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies; or

(iii) For exportation in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations.

(c) Any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, have in possession or under control, assemble, or repair a short-barreled rifle or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, who is in compliance with federal law and who is otherwise legally allowed to possess a firearm.

(3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.

(4) Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony.

View Quote

Originally I was going to just pull out all of the "short barreled rifles" from (1), but I agree with Ranb that WA state probably still wants it to be a state offense to break federal law.

On the east-side here in Kirkland, all of the same people who voted for the suppressor legislation are still in office, but I didn't check around for other districts. I'm a liberal, and almost all of my liberal friends are reasonably gun-friendly, so I really can't see the legislators getting much push back just bringing state law in line with federal law.

Posted: 11/6/2013 4:01:50 PM EDT

[#38]

yea, that would be good to get SBR allowable in the state. however, doesn't that mean we still need tax stamps and aren't they taking a year now with the gubberment thinking of removing the trust and making it at the discretion of the local pd? that would basically make it a law with the rights just not the ability by the citizen to exercise those rights because of the CLEO.

Posted: 11/6/2013 5:10:05 PM EDT

[#39]

doesn't that mean we still need tax stamps and aren't they taking a year now with the gubberment thinking of removing the trust and making it at the discretion of the local pd?

View Quote

Even if WA state law was changed to completely remove all SBR rules, you could still have the feds knocking at your door. Personally I'd rather have WA state law reference federal law rather having the existing setup where they have different rules, either of which can restrict what you can have.

Posted: 11/6/2013 7:18:05 PM EDT

[#40]

I really hope this happens. I currently live in VA but plan to move back to WA after I leave the Navy in Aug 2014. I would hate to have to get rid of the SBR I finally got approval for and put together literally two weeks ago.

Posted: 11/6/2013 7:52:34 PM EDT

[#41]

Good news.

Posted: 11/7/2013 8:19:58 PM EDT

[#42]

thanks randy for sticking strong to this issue, you are the man! i have seen you post on multiple forums for at least a couple years fighting for this. i cant wait until i can purchase a 14.5" upper without some long crazy looking flash hider welded to the end of it. or better yet, get a mk18 or something similar. thanks buddy.

Posted: 11/9/2013 10:14:51 PM EDT

[#43]

So if Wa. state eventually allows SBR's, a "tax stamp" will still be required?
Im interested for sure. I prefer an SBR over a "pistol" for what you spend building or buying a pistol, you can have a nice SBR.
I have been following this and reading up on it, keep up the good work.

Posted: 11/9/2013 10:52:25 PM EDT

[#44]

Yes, the Federal tax and registration process would still be required.

Posted: 11/10/2013 12:16:28 AM EDT

[#45]

One of the major selling points of our SBR/SBS efforts is that we are merely trying to bring state law into line with federal law. This is why no one needs to oppose the bill at all. Even the anti-gun nuts can get behind this one just like they did with the silencer bill. It is a good opportunity for those like Kline, Murray and Kohl-Welles to curry favor with their gun owning constituents. :)

Randy

Posted: 11/11/2013 10:20:23 PM EDT

[#46]

All my 14.5" carbines Will remain as pistols, for a bit longer I guess...it has been 6 years what is a few more.

....(they are hard to find Colt barrels....and I may be crazy enough in the future to SBR all of them, if legal (so I dont drill the barrels for perm job)...

)...I will still have other Title 1 14.5ers beaters too...

Posted: 11/16/2013 3:28:27 PM EDT

[#47]

Good work guys! I'll break out the pen and paper and get going on some letters myself.

Posted: 11/18/2013 11:31:48 PM EDT

[#48]

Tag

Posted: 11/20/2013 9:50:12 PM EDT

[#49]

Michigan just legalized SBR's. Hope WA follows suit.

Possibly talk to some of the people who backed their bill and get some pointers?

Michigan: Senate approves bill to lift ban on short-barreled shotguns and rifles

Posted: 11/23/2013 4:08:39 AM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:
Michigan just legalized SBR's. Hope WA follows suit.

Possibly talk to some of the people who backed their bill and get some pointers?

Michigan: Senate approves bill to lift ban on short-barreled shotguns and rifles

View Quote

That was just the Senate bill, passed 36-2. Now it goes to the House.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 4/2 SB 5956 Signed! (Page 2 of 23)

Hometown » Washington

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us