SBR bill being re-drafted for 2016. - Page 4

Hometown » Washington

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SBR bill being re-drafted for 2016. (Page 4 of 22)

Posted: 1/21/2016 12:36:31 PM EDT

[#1]

Randy and I have our testimony set, and we will be the only two testifying on behalf of the SBR bill on the pro side. I can't imagine anyone testifying on the against side, but that could happen. Fairly generic, discussing the technical changes we need made to the bill. The best part is we get a hearing. That leaves the door open for two options to get it to the floor for a vote. Straight through the committee to the floor, or the house speaker could pull the bill to the floor.

Not sure if they will be televising the hearing on TVW, but we will be at the end of the dog & pony show. http://www.tvw.org/schedule-main/?start=01%2F21%2F2016+12%3A00pm

Posted: 1/21/2016 2:13:16 PM EDT

[#2]

Are my maths broken, or is it looking like if this thing passes we'll have about a month after this takes effect before 41p does?

Posted: 1/21/2016 2:29:27 PM EDT

[#3]

Pretty much correct. It depends on if they extend into a special session. Inquired about having it take effect immediately upon signing, and Blake said not to push it.

Posted: 1/21/2016 2:32:25 PM EDT

[#4]

Good thing it only takes a few minutes to e-file!

Posted: 1/21/2016 3:00:18 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
Randy and I have our testimony set, and we will be the only two testifying on behalf of the SBR bill on the pro side. I can't imagine anyone testifying on the against side, but that could happen. Fairly generic, discussing the technical changes we need made to the bill. The best part is we get a hearing. That leaves the door open for two options to get it to the floor for a vote. Straight through the committee to the floor, or the house speaker could pull the bill to the floor.

Not sure if they will be televising the hearing on TVW, but we will be at the end of the dog & pony show. http://www.tvw.org/schedule-main/?start=01%2F21%2F2016+12%3A00pm

View Quote

Looks like a firearms-heavy agenda. It'll be interesting to see how things go. https://app.leg.wa.gov/CMD/agenda.aspx?mid=23714

Thanks for testifying!

Posted: 1/21/2016 6:45:14 PM EDT

[#6]

Only one person con signed up to speak against the SBR bill.

Posted: 1/21/2016 7:28:13 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
Only one person con signed up to speak against the SBR bill.

View Quote

Good testimony. Seemed to go well.

Posted: 1/21/2016 7:52:43 PM EDT

[#8]

Glad to have Randy back there with me. Thanks for the support.

The testimony portion went well. The only person who spoke out against it was an anarchist. Anyway, we had a few minutes of discussion afterwords with the Council for the judiciary committee on just a few minor edits. Blake was there and approved those edits. Bill will likely move forward as presented with the suggested edits.

The specific edits were to add the word "repair" to the section where we added make manufacture and so on. Also in the lower section subsection 3 item iii "for exportation and for sale in state" was also added.

Posted: 1/21/2016 7:58:52 PM EDT

[#9]

Good to hear. Thanks for your efforts and for keeping us informed.

Posted: 1/21/2016 8:37:28 PM EDT

[#10]

Thank you for your efforts!!!

This is insane that this was previously passed and then fucked up due to someone not liking the verbiage when the intent of passing the law was clear.

Posted: 1/21/2016 9:01:26 PM EDT

[#11]

Brian and I were the ones who screwed up. But we're fixing it now.

Posted: 1/21/2016 10:11:24 PM EDT

[#12]

Thank you so much.

SFC

Posted: 1/21/2016 10:13:21 PM EDT

[#13]

Big ups to you guys. Sounds likes a productive day.

Keep it up!

Posted: 1/21/2016 10:36:28 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
Brian and I were the ones who screwed up. But we're fixing it now.

View Quote

Thanks for all your efforts Dawg. It is appreciated!

If this goes through, pre-41p or not, there's gonna be a lot more gun buying over here. I'd like a second M92 PAP, a CZ Scorpion, and a few more AR lowers...

Posted: 1/21/2016 10:58:54 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
Glad to have Randy back there with me. Thanks for the support.

The testimony portion went well. The only person who spoke out against it was an anarchist. Anyway, we had a few minutes of discussion afterwords with the Council for the judiciary committee on just a few minor edits. Blake was there and approved those edits. Bill will likely move forward as presented with the suggested edits.

The specific edits were to add the word "repair" to the section where we added make manufacture and so on. Also in the lower section subsection 3 item iii "for exportation and for sale in state" was also added.

View Quote

lol - why would an anarchist speak out against a bill that would further loosen government restriction? What was his reasoning?

Posted: 1/22/2016 12:41:37 AM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

lol - why would an anarchist speak out against a bill that would further loosen government restriction? What was his reasoning?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Glad to have Randy back there with me. Thanks for the support.

The testimony portion went well. The only person who spoke out against it was an anarchist. Anyway, we had a few minutes of discussion afterwords with the Council for the judiciary committee on just a few minor edits. Blake was there and approved those edits. Bill will likely move forward as presented with the suggested edits.

The specific edits were to add the word "repair" to the section where we added make manufacture and so on. Also in the lower section subsection 3 item iii "for exportation and for sale in state" was also added.

lol - why would an anarchist speak out against a bill that would further loosen government restriction? What was his reasoning?

Cliff note version, he thought it was stupid to ask permission to alter something you already own, and he hates the idea of government. He made me look pretty moderate.

Posted: 1/22/2016 1:04:20 AM EDT

[#17]

A lot of people here are willing to post negative comments but, are unwilling to help.

Thanks for all your well intentioned work, I appreciate it!

Posted: 1/22/2016 1:04:59 AM EDT

[#18]

Thank you Dawgfish and Ranb!! You guys have been great advocates for our rights, it's much appreciated. Can't wait to e-file again!

Posted: 1/22/2016 3:39:57 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
Thank you Dawgfish and Ranb!! You guys have been great advocates for our rights, it's much appreciated. Can't wait to e-file again!

View Quote

I gotta learn how to e-form myself.

Posted: 1/22/2016 9:48:30 AM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
The testimony portion went well. The only person who spoke out against it was an anarchist.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
The testimony portion went well. The only person who spoke out against it was an anarchist.

Quoted:
Cliff note version, he thought it was stupid to ask permission to alter something you already own, and he hates the idea of government. He made me look pretty moderate.

HAHA! Well played dawgfish! Well played.

Posted: 1/22/2016 1:20:21 PM EDT

[#21]

So how much $ did you have to slip the homeless guy to rave like an idiot in this committee hearing? $20

Well played indeed...

Posted: 1/22/2016 11:00:53 PM EDT

[#22]

Sounds like things went well, this is good news. Assuming this all goes thru and things are fixed with the form 1's, what do we do with the forms that we previously submitted? Can we just re-Efile them? Or do we have to go thru the whole process again? Thanks guys, and sorry if this was already covered.

Edit: I forgot to thank Dawgfish and Ranb, you guys deserve way more credit and praise then whats already been said. Thank you!!!

Posted: 1/23/2016 6:40:14 AM EDT

[#23]

Thanks for your work. Nice to hear only the one nutter at the end. I'm one of the few who got their Form-1 approved before this nonsense began. Any idea of a time frame till this comes up for further review or vote?

Posted: 1/23/2016 9:55:18 AM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
Thanks for your work. Nice to hear only the one nutter at the end. I'm one of the few who got their Form-1 approved before this nonsense began. Any idea of a time frame till this comes up for further review or vote?

View Quote

Bill needs to be passed out of committee by 2/5/16 and passed through the house by 2/17/16.

Posted: 1/23/2016 3:28:03 PM EDT

[#25]

Thank you Dawgfish and Ranb for taking point over and over again in this matter!!

Regardless of the outcome on 2/17, you two have put up a Hell of a fight and I truly thank you for standing up for all of us here in the State of Washington... Without all your efforts, SBRs would only be a dream!!

Posted: 1/23/2016 4:52:34 PM EDT

[#26]

SB 6165 (The Senate version of the SBR bill) has a hearing scheduled for the 25th at 1:30pm. Link to 6165 I have other business to attend to so I will not be there.

The hearing schedule is here; Schedule

There are three gun bills. 6165 (SBR's) and 6267 (notice of expiring CPL) are not going to get much attention. However there is another bill which will add another exemption for gun transfers that require bkgd checks.

SB6158

(g) transfer of possession of a firearm between individuals while conducting nonprofit fund-raising activities including, but not limited to, auctions, raffles, and contests;

View Quote

It is a small step, but most importantly it gives us a chance to show the legislature how bad I-594 really is. We need someone to get up there and let them know what the words without limitation really mean. Since there is no limit to how long or what kind of transfer is involved in WA, the words "without limitation" mean it can be illegal to simply handle a gun that doesn't belong to you unless you meet one of the few exceptions.

If you want to speak get there by noon to sign up. Call the bill sponsor and let him know what you want to say at the hearing and you might get a front row seat to speak. Remember to be calm and factual.

Randy

Posted: 1/23/2016 8:17:23 PM EDT

[#27]

I'll be there. I may have a second speaker squared away.

Posted: 1/23/2016 8:40:48 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
Thank you Dawgfish and Ranb for taking point over and over again in this matter!!

Regardless of the outcome on 2/17, you two have put up a Hell of a fight and I truly thank you for standing up for all of us here in the State of Washington... Without all your efforts, SBRs would only be a dream!!

View Quote

Absolutely!!

Posted: 1/25/2016 3:39:10 AM EDT

[#29]

1/25/16 there is a senate hearing on the companion bill, SB 6165. 1:30pm J.A Cherberg Building, senate hearing room 4. If you are local and can make it, please do so. I'll be there.

As with the suppressor legislation, we are also running a companion bill in both houses. Having the hearing for the Senate companion bill allows the Senate to get up to speed on the issue and pave the way for the House bill. Most likely we will end up having another hearing for HB 2481 in the Senate, but it will be a cake walk after we get the Senate version of the bill passed through the Senate.

Redundant, but it works.

Please show up if you can. Even if you only sign up in support of the bill and don't speak, it is still a bonus for us.

Posted: 1/25/2016 7:11:00 PM EDT

[#30]

Testimony went well. We had another regular Dan a.k.a. massive design. Had a couple of good questions from Peterson and the other folks on the panel.

Posted: 1/26/2016 4:35:55 PM EDT

[#31]

Thank you for putting all the work in. Fingers crossed.

Posted: 1/26/2016 6:51:44 PM EDT

[#32]

Just for a little blast from the past, "I heard the bill is in trouble"

Lol

Thanks for all of the work you buys are doing. Emails have been sent, and fingers are crossed. Hopefully we'll get to resubmit those forms that got denied soon!

Posted: 1/26/2016 9:26:24 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
Just for a little blast from the past, "I heard the bill is in trouble"

View Quote

Why I ought'a........

Posted: 2/4/2016 5:25:00 AM EDT

[#34]

Tag

Posted: 2/4/2016 10:35:26 PM EDT

[#35]

A shop owner I know here up North talked to ATF this week, manufacturers in WA are GTG building and selling to WA residents.

A step in the right direction.

Posted: 2/4/2016 11:01:18 PM EDT

[#36]

What is the status of the bill?

Posted: 2/5/2016 1:17:29 AM EDT

[#37]

any news? crossing fingers.

Posted: 2/5/2016 1:31:16 AM EDT

[#38]

Am I to interpret that this went through?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6165&year=2015

History of the Bill
as of Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:24 PM

Sponsors: Senators Takko, Pearson, Sheldon, Benton
Companion Bill: HB 2481

2016 REGULAR SESSION
Jan 6 Prefiled for introduction.
Jan 11 First reading, referred to Law & Justice. (View Original Bill)
Jan 25 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Law & Justice at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Feb 3 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Law & Justice at 5:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Feb 4 LAW - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) (Majority Report)
Minority; without recommendation. (Minority Report)

Following link:
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6165-S.pdf

Revised text says:
It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable5 6 federal law.

Posted: 2/5/2016 2:04:15 AM EDT

[#39]

Sounds like it will go to the floor for a vote....would be awesome...but would that go into law before july?

Posted: 2/5/2016 2:55:32 AM EDT

[#40]

Also sounds like Jinkins let the HB version stall in committee again? grr.....

Posted: 2/5/2016 3:15:37 AM EDT

[#41]

Dawgfish,
Thank you for your efforts!

Please log out and log back in...

Posted: 2/5/2016 7:22:44 AM EDT

[#42]

Bummer if that means it is held up in the committe.

Posted: 2/5/2016 8:56:55 AM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:

<snip>

Revised text says:
It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable5 6 federal law.

View Quote

Is this wording going to cause problems? It says "not unlawful for a person", and it is my understanding that a trust, LLC, or other legal entity are not a "person".

Posted: 2/5/2016 1:26:29 PM EDT

[#44]

Not sure what the status quoted above really means...we need a dawg-lation on aisle 5.

As far as the language of the new bill...I would just prefer to have SBRs deleted from state law completely...that's the only way to be 100% sure, but I think we're going to be fine with this proposed version? If it doesn't show intent, nothing will.

Posted: 2/5/2016 2:22:44 PM EDT

[#45]

The senate version of the bill made it through the Senate Law and Justice committee, the mirror committee of the House Judiciary committee. The house bill did not make it out of the House Judiciary committee. We needed one of the two bills to make it out of either committees by the end of the day today to keep it alive for a chance at a plan A approval process. Because we received a hearing in the House Judiciary, that opens the door for a plan B approval process as well.

Plan A = A version of the SBR bill passes through a committee, then heads to the floor of that house for a vote, passes, then gets sent to the other house's corresponding committee, testimony, vote in executive session, then to the floor for a vote by that house, then signed by Inslee.

Plan B = The bill gets a hearing, but no vote in committee. Because the bill was given the courtesy of a hearing it allows the speaker of the house to pull it directly to the floor of the house for a vote. (this is what happened in 2014.) Essentially another bill is held hostage and this bill is used as part of a trade.

While the "bill might be in trouble", it is still alive.

Already notified my boss that I will likely be heading to Olympia again for another round of committee testimony.

Cool thing, one of our previous roadblocks on suppressor legislation, Senator Jamie Pederson who is a very left democrat actually voted in support of the legislation.

Another piece of good news is that SB 6185, an amendment to I-594, protecting individuals who are auctioning firearms off at non-profit events from prosecution, has also been sent to the floor of the senate for a vote where it needs a 2/3's vote to pass (initiative that isn't two years old). It will still need to get back through the House Judiciary, and so on.

Clear as mud?

EDIT: Thanks for the team membership! Much appreciated.

Posted: 2/5/2016 2:27:05 PM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:

Is this wording going to cause problems? It says "not unlawful for a person", and it is my understanding that a trust, LLC, or other legal entity are not a "person".

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

<snip>

Revised text says:
It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable5 6 federal law.

Is this wording going to cause problems? It says "not unlawful for a person", and it is my understanding that a trust, LLC, or other legal entity are not a "person".

A person manufactures it, a trust owns it. Trusts, LLC, Corps, etc, depending on case law, are, or are not persons.

Posted: 2/5/2016 2:52:08 PM EDT

[#47]

test - now with new and improved avatar.

Posted: 2/5/2016 3:25:54 PM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:
The senate version of the bill made it through the Senate Law and Justice committee, the mirror committee of the House Judiciary committee. The house bill did not make it out of the House Judiciary committee. We needed one of the two bills to make it out of either committees by the end of the day today to keep it alive for a chance at a plan A approval process. Because we received a hearing in the House Judiciary, that opens the door for a plan B approval process as well.

Plan A = A version of the SBR bill passes through a committee, then heads to the floor of that house for a vote, passes, then gets sent to the other house's corresponding committee, testimony, vote in executive session, then to the floor for a vote by that house, then signed by Inslee..

View Quote

Sooo, from a "what should arfcommers be doing right now to support this" perspective...the Senate version is out of committee... does this mean that it WILL get a full vote on the Senate floor or that it CAN get a full vote? Should we all be contacting the person(s) that make that decision? Who are they? If it getting a full vote is a certainty, should be be contacting our senators now or wait until the vote is scheduled?

I'm hoping we can keep some momentum of action here because I definitely want to see this one pass ASAP. Speaking of which, if the worst case scenario were to occur and this bill goes nowhere, from here, what kind of time frame are we looking at for attempt #2? Later in 2016? 2017? I don't really know how legislative schedules work...

Posted: 2/5/2016 4:27:04 PM EDT

[#49]

The Rules Committee decides when the bill gets the second reading on the floor (it is merely read out loud for the members to hear) followed by a third reading (actual vote) on the floor. The Rules Committee doesn't publish an agenda online like the other committees do, so things seem to happen all of a sudden or not at all when a bill is in Rules.

There are Order of Consideration Reports that are sent out to those who sign up to receive them. Sign up here.

If this attempt fails, then it will need to be re-introduced under a new number for the 2017-2018 sessions.

Randy

Posted: 2/5/2016 4:45:58 PM EDT

[#50]

I would suggest getting touch with your senators now. The bill should come out of rules committee shortly, (I Hope) and it needs to be passed by 2-12-16 with a vote on the floor of the senate. The SBR bill should have no issues in the senate if it gets to the floor, but the I-594 related bill might be tight. If the senate version passes then it goes to the House. This is now plan A.

Senator emails

Plan B route would have to be completed by the end of next week. Bills need to be passed out of their respective houses by 2/17/16. Brian Blake would work behind the scenes to make that happen, and that may actually be in process right now.

So to recap, we needed one of these two SBR bills to pass through committee by 2/5/16, which the senate bill did. We need to have one of these two SBR bills pass on the floor by 2/17/16. Both still have that chance. one plan A, the other plan B.

If we need to get in touch with Chopp, I'll pass along that information to you early next week.

Good questions.

Edit: Date was wrong for passage in house of origin. Corrected to 2/17/16

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SBR bill being re-drafted for 2016. (Page 4 of 22)

Hometown » Washington

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us