I received this regarding my ongoing inquiries about getting NFA allowed in WA state:

Thank you again for your emails and bringing this issue forward.  I spoke with Sheriff Lucas and he said that no states allow the short-barreled shot gun and that there are potential federal issues as well.  I wanted to let you know that after careful consideration I will not be introducing a bill to allow for these weapons.  I appreciate your work on the issue and it has helped to better educate me.  I have always voted in support of the Second Amendment and will continue to honor that.  Please stay in touch.

Quoted: I received this regarding my ongoing inquiries about getting NFA allowed in WA state: Thank you again for your emails and bringing this issue forward.  I spoke with Sheriff Lucas and he said that no states allow the short-barreled shot gun and that there are potential federal issues as well.  I wanted to let you know that after careful consideration I will not be introducing a bill to allow for these weapons.  I appreciate your work on the issue and it has helped to better educate me.  I have always voted in support of the Second Amendment and will continue to honor that.  Please stay in touch.

Interesting, sounds like the Sheriff needs to be educated on NFA laws in other states.

Here's the reply I have going so far:

Thank you for your continued correspondence regarding NFA in Washington. I would like to remind you that my initial inquiry was more along the lines of short barreled rifles, not short barreled shotguns.  But, overall, it was about the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).  In general, NFA pertains to suppressors (incorrectly referred to as “silencers”), rifles with barrels of less than 16 inches, shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches, fully automatic rifles (rifles that fire more than 1 bullet per single trigger pull) and a few other items.   The NFA (1934) did not make possession of these types of weapons illegal (for law abiding citizens only, of course), but required federal registration of said weapons as well as requiring an excise tax (for most items, $200) and obtaining a local law enforcement officer signature on the BATFE paperwork.  As such, various states have different laws regarding NFA items. I find the information that you received from Sherriff Lucas surprising. While I do not have exact information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), I am fairly certain of the following: Short Barrel Rifles (rifles with barrels less than 16”) are legal (but you still must go through the BATFE NFA process) in the following [38] states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Short barrel shotguns (shotguns with barrels less than 18”) are legal (but you still must go through the BATFE NFA process) in the following [37] states: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Purchasing and federally registering a short barrel rifle is possible in Washington state, however, the purchase and registration must have been performed prior to July 1, 1994 (reference RCW 9.41.190). Again, the Washington state constitution states in 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, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller has ruled that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right.   Likewise, the Washington state constitution refers to “the right of the individual citizen…shall not be impaired”.   Therefore I am rather confused…in your opinion, what does “shall not be impaired” mean?   According to dictionary.com, impair means: to make or cause to become worse; diminish in ability, value, excellence, etc.; weaken or damage Based on this, I see RCW 9.41.190 as impairing, or weakening/diminishing, my right to bear arms in defense of myself and the state of Washington as I am unable to complete the legal [federal] process for purchasing and registering a short barrel rifle.  Would you not agree?   RCW 9.41.190 is a direct affront to Section 24 of the Washington state constitution.  RCW 9.41.190 is discriminatory against any individual who became a Washington state resident on or after July 1, 1994. I encourage you to engage with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to obtain information regarding the legality of short barrel rifles.  Their contact information is: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Office of Public and Governmental Affairs 99 New York Ave. NE Mail Stop 5S144 Washington, DC 20226 Restoring and/or protecting the rights of law abiding citizens is ideally performed by the method you and I are engaged in here – with the citizens corresponding with their government legislators whom perform thorough research to protect the rights of the people whom they represent.  Unfortunately, there are times when government legislators fail to protect the rights of the people and then the people must challenge their government in court, as Dick Heller had to do in Washington, D.C. If anything, introducing legislation on this matter would encourage debate in the Washington legislature.

Well put.

just an fyi, you can add kansas to those lists, making one more state for each.

Quoted: Here's the reply I have going so far: I find the information that you received from Sherriff Lucas surprising. While I do not have exact information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), I am fairly certain of the following: While I do not expect Sheriff Lucas to know or understand 49 other state's laws regarding short-barreled rifles and shotguns, I can inform you that the following states freely permit NFA items in compliance with federal/ATF registration. Short Barrel Rifles (rifles with barrels less than 16”) are legal (but you still must go through the BATFE NFA process) in the following [38] states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Short barrel shotguns (shotguns with barrels less than 18”) are legal (but you still must go through the BATFE NFA process) in the following [37] states: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. <snip>...

Just a suggestion...

Attach a copy of the ATF forms with finger print cards that you must be filled out also.  

I hate to say this, but she needs to talk to the BATFE At least they know the laws when it comes to this sort of thing.

Very nice.

Quoted: Interesting, sounds like the Sheriff needs to be educated on NFA laws in other states.

Or the sheriff knows full well that what he told them was BS, but just doesn't want people owning NFA items.

Quoted: Quoted: Interesting, sounds like the Sheriff needs to be educated on NFA laws in other states. Or the sheriff knows full well that what he told them was BS, but just doesn't want people owning NFA items.

not so, the sheriff has signed several of my forms, his assistants didn't seem fully up to speed on it but still seemed much more educated than even the average gun owner or most people I've read comments from in WAHTF.

As a point for the original poster to tell his rep the ATF has approved 688 short barreled rifles as legal in the state of Washington already along with 646 short barreled shotguns, 1,346 silencers and 3,380 machine guns, and these numbers are as of 2005 and the number of NFA items has grown yet there are still NO crimes from them whatsoever

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Interesting, sounds like the Sheriff needs to be educated on NFA laws in other states. Or the sheriff knows full well that what he told them was BS, but just doesn't want people owning NFA items. not so, the sheriff has signed several of my forms, his assistants didn't seem fully up to speed on it but still seemed much more educated than even the average gun owner or most people I've read comments from in WAHTF. As a point for the original poster to tell his rep the ATF has approved 688 short barreled rifles as legal in the state of Washington already along with 646 short barreled shotguns, 1,346 silencers and 3,380 machine guns, and these numbers are as of 2005 and the number of NFA items has grown yet there are still NO crimes from them whatsoever

Plus one...

Quoted: not so, the sheriff has signed several of my forms, his assistants didn't seem fully up to speed on it but still seemed much more educated than even the average gun owner or most people I've read comments from in WAHTF.

That just seems like a really ignorant comment to make (those aren't legal in any state), unless you don't know, in which case, why not just admit that you don't know?

Just sounded fishy to me is all.

Quoted: just an fyi, you can add kansas to those lists, making one more state for each.

I wouldn't do just that, I'd point out that Kansas realized that citizens possessing these firearms would not lead to increased crime and allowed civilian possession and that this leaves Washington, California and Hawaii as the three states that don't allow possession in accordance with federal law

maybe print a copy of this map to show that the rep is helping Washington stay in the minority with regard to our rights

map of legalized machinegun ownership

Quoted: Quoted: not so, the sheriff has signed several of my forms, his assistants didn't seem fully up to speed on it but still seemed much more educated than even the average gun owner or most people I've read comments from in WAHTF. That just seems like a really ignorant comment to make (those aren't legal in any state), unless you don't know, in which case, why not just admit that you don't know? Just sounded fishy to me is all.

to the contrary it sounded like a diversionary answer, the rep may have asked if they are illegal and the correct answer is they are not legal in most states, I believe NFA weapons are in fact illegal in every state, but most states have exemptions for when they are possessed in accordance with federal law whereas we do not

Quoted: to the contrary it sounded like a diversionary answer, the rep may have asked if they are illegal and the correct answer is they are not legal in most states, I believe NFA weapons are in fact illegal in every state, but most states have exemptions for when they are possessed in accordance with federal law whereas we do not

Diversionary, lying, fishy...all the same to me.  Unless he gave the fully truthful answer, which is that they are illegal, unless you have applied for, received and paid for an exemption, in which case they are legal, in as many as 38 states, of which we are not one.

Thanks for the inputs.

Here's the email as submitted:

Thank you for your continued correspondence regarding NFA in Washington. I would like to remind you that my initial inquiry was more along the lines of short barreled rifles, not short barreled shotguns.  But, overall, it was about the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).  In general, NFA pertains to suppressors (incorrectly referred to as “silencers”), rifles with barrels of less than 16 inches, shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches, fully automatic rifles (rifles that fire more than 1 bullet per single trigger pull) and a few other items. The NFA (1934) did not make possession of these types of weapons illegal (for law abiding citizens only, of course), but required federal registration of said weapons as well as requiring an excise tax (for most items, $200) and obtaining a local law enforcement officer signature on the BATFE paperwork.  As such, various states have different laws regarding NFA items. While I do not expect Sheriff Lucas to know or understand 49 other state's laws regarding short-barreled rifles and shotguns, I can inform you that the following states freely permit NFA items in compliance with federal/ATF registration: Short Barrel Rifles (rifles with barrels less than 16”) are legal (but you still must go through the BATFE NFA process) in the following [39] states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Short barrel shotguns (shotguns with barrels less than 18”) are legal (but you still must go through the BATFE NFA process) in the following [38] states: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. As published from BATF records as of March 20, 2007: (SBR = short barrel rifle SBS = short barrel shotgun AOW = "any other weapon" MG = machine gun [fires more than 1 bullet with a single pull of the trigger]) Washington Suppressors- 1,831 SBRs- 740 SBSs- 675 AOWs- 1,379 MGs- 3,515 Total for all States Suppressors- 158,671 SBRs- 36,536 SBSs- 97,903 AOWs- 49,052 MGs- 400,739 Purchasing and federally registering a short barrel rifle is possible in Washington state, however, the purchase and registration must have been performed prior to July 1, 1994 (reference RCW 9.41.190). Again, the Washington state constitution states in 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, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller has ruled that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right.  Likewise, the Washington state constitution refers to “the right of the individual citizen…shall not be impaired”. Therefore I am rather confused…in your opinion, what does “shall not be impaired” mean? According to dictionary.com, impair means: "to make or cause to become worse; diminish in ability, value, excellence, etc.; weaken or damage" Based on this, I see RCW 9.41.190 as impairing, or weakening/diminishing, my right to bear arms in defense of myself and the state of Washington as I am unable to complete the legal [federal] process for purchasing and registering a short barrel rifle.  Would you not agree?   RCW 9.41.190 is a direct affront to Section 24 of the Washington state constitution.  RCW 9.41.190 is discriminatory against any individual who became a Washington state resident on or after July 1, 1994. I encourage you to engage with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to obtain information regarding the legality of short barrel rifles.  Their contact information is: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Office of Public and Governmental Affairs 99 New York Ave. NE Mail Stop 5S144 Washington, DC 20226 Restoring and/or protecting the rights of law abiding citizens is ideally performed by the method you and I are engaged in here – with the citizens corresponding with their government legislators who perform thorough research to protect the rights of the people whom they represent.  Unfortunately, there are times when government legislators fail to protect the rights of the people and then the people must challenge their government in court, as Dick Heller had to do in Washington, D.C. If anything, introducing legislation on this matter would encourage debate in the Washington legislature. Regards, Procyon

Can/will others send similar letters to their state senators/representatives?

I've moved inside of Clark County, so I sent a similar mail to my new Senator/Congressmen:

Sen Pridemore and Reps Fromhold and Moeller: I am a new resident to Washington state in your district (Vancouver just inside I-205). I was rather surprised to discover that WA state makes it illegal for law abiding citizens to possess a short barrel shotgun, a short barrel rifle or use suppressors. We Washingtonians can own suppressors and mount suppressors on a firearm, we just can't shoot a bullet through them. WA made these illegal in July, 1994. Washington residents who owned NFA items were grandfathered in. This is discriminatory to Washington residents who achieved adult age after July, 1994 or individuals who moved here after July, 1994. NFA pertains to suppressors (incorrectly referred to as "silencers"), rifles with barrels of less than 16 inches, shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches, fully automatic rifles (rifles that fire more than 1 bullet per single trigger pull) and a few other items. The NFA (1934) did not make possession of these types of weapons illegal (for law abiding citizens only, of course), but required federal registration of said weapons as well as requiring an excise tax (for most items, $200) and obtaining a local law enforcement officer signature on the BATFE paperwork. As such, various states have different laws regarding NFA items. The following states freely permit NFA items in compliance with federal/ATF registration: Short Barrel Rifles (rifles with barrels less than 16") are legal (but you go through the BATFE NFA process) in the following [39] states: AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI and WY Short barrel shotguns (shotguns with barrels less than 18") are legal (but you go through the BATFE NFA process) in the following [38] states: AK, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI and WY Current CIVILIAN NFA ownership as published from BATF records as of March 20, 2007: (SBR = short barrel rifle SBS = short barrel shotgun AOW = "any other weapon" MG = machine gun [fires more than 1 bullet with a single pull of the trigger]) WA Suppressors- 1,831 SBRs- 740 SBSs- 675 AOWs- 1,379 MGs- 3,515 Total for all States Suppressors- 158,671 SBRs- 36,536 SBSs- 97,903 AOWs- 49,052 MGs- 400,739 Purchasing and federally registering a short barrel rifle is possible in WA state, however, the purchase and registration must have been performed prior to July 1, 1994 (reference RCW 9.41.190). The WA state constitution states in 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, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller has ruled that the 2nd Amendment refers to an indvidual right. Likewise, the WA state constitution refers to "the right of the individual citizen...shall not be impaired". Based on this, I see RCW 9.41.190 as impairing my right to bear arms in defense of myself and the state of WA as I am unable to complete the legal [federal] process for purchasing and registering a short barrel rifle. Would you not agree? RCW 9.41.190 is a direct affront to Section 24 of the WA state constitution. RCW 9.41.190 is discriminatory against any individual who became a WA state resident on or after July 1, 1994. Would it be possible to get legislation introduced to repeal RCW 9.41.190?

Rep Wallace stated she would continue to research and educate herself and asked if I would be a reference for her.

She should be talking to people at the federal level rather than local law enforcement. I kinda copyed your letter and changed the intro and sent it to my representatives.  I really encourage more of you to do the same.  We should also push to these people that, not only does it give us our rights back but we will be funding the ATF with $200 for each gun we buy to help them catch the REAL bad guys.  That could be another selling point, since a lot of our reps in this state are dems.  

CJG

I was reading silencer history and performance volume 1 the other day and it has a section on the airborne lead reduction benefits as well. How could we write a bill to use the "for the children" thing they like so much against us.

I'm trying to think of something along the lines of...  For the protection of recreational and beginning shooters; the use of airborne lead reduction devices that cool the vaporized lead from the discharge of a firearm and attempt to contain it shall be encouraged and if these devices by nature of their function reduce but do not eliminating the sound of a gunshot than exception to RCW 9.41.250 1(c) will be allowed if used for lawful purposes.


I'm sure we'd be able to get MANY manufacturers to testify that their rimfire cans collect a impressive amount of lead that otherwise is being rendered airborne

OK so i sent my rep basically that same letter but with my own opening paragraph and this is what i got back:

Dear Dan,

I appreciate you writing me with this cause.  I, for one, am not
interested in repealing RCW 9.41.190.  I believe we have done the right
thing with our statutes, preserving gun owner rights, and making illegal
those things that are not necessary.  Again thanks for writing.


    Sherry


To say the least, the response caught me a little off guard since I am pretty astonished they this rep considers the RIGHT to own certain firearms not NECESSARY.  So what mabe next they will think that freedom of speach isnt neccasary or one of our other rights.  Any ways, I am going to think about this for a couple days and really think up my best plan of attack on a return letter. anyone else have ideas on how i should reply?  I want to include the statement that i understand its a foreign thought for those in olympia to actually give some rights BACK to the people.  I will also talk more about the other states that allow the stuff and bring up how any bad guy can make this stuff now but i want to be able to have the stuff legaly which includes submitting FBI fingerprint cards etc, anyone who goes through those steps is a good guy.

CJG

Quoted: OK so i sent my rep basically that same letter but with my own opening paragraph and this is what i got back: Dear Dan, I appreciate you writing me with this cause.  I, for one, am not interested in repealing RCW 9.41.190.  I believe we have done the right thing with our statutes, preserving gun owner rights, and making illegal those things that are not necessary.  Again thanks for writing.     Sherry To say the least, the response caught me a little off guard since I am pretty astonished they this rep considers the RIGHT to own certain firearms not NECESSARY.  So what mabe next they will think that freedom of speach isnt neccasary or one of our other rights.  Any ways, I am going to think about this for a couple days and really think up my best plan of attack on a return letter. anyone else have ideas on how i should reply?  I want to include the statement that i understand its a foreign thought for those in olympia to actually give some rights BACK to the people.  I will also talk more about the other states that allow the stuff and bring up how any bad guy can make this stuff now but i want to be able to have the stuff legaly which includes submitting FBI fingerprint cards etc, anyone who goes through those steps is a good guy. CJG

Provide her with a detailed comparison of an AR-15 pistol with an 11.5" barrel (legal) vs an AR-15 rifle with an 11.5" barrel (illegal).  Include pictures if you can.

Ask her why, in her opinion, one is legal when the other is illegal.  Inform her that Ferraris are not necessary, should they be illegal?  I could provide a laundry list of inanimate objects that aren't necessary, yet aren't illegal [yet].

Thats a good idea, I have a 7" AR pistol, and i think i can find a pick of someone that has a 7" SBR.  Its just sad what these people in olympia have done to us, pretty frusterating in fact.

CJG

Quoted: Quoted: OK so i sent my rep basically that same letter but with my own opening paragraph and this is what i got back: Dear Dan, I appreciate you writing me with this cause.  I, for one, am not interested in repealing RCW 9.41.190.  I believe we have done the right thing with our statutes, preserving gun owner rights, and making illegal those things that are not necessary.  Again thanks for writing.     Sherry To say the least, the response caught me a little off guard since I am pretty astonished they this rep considers the RIGHT to own certain firearms not NECESSARY.  So what mabe next they will think that freedom of speach isnt neccasary or one of our other rights.  Any ways, I am going to think about this for a couple days and really think up my best plan of attack on a return letter. anyone else have ideas on how i should reply?  I want to include the statement that i understand its a foreign thought for those in olympia to actually give some rights BACK to the people.  I will also talk more about the other states that allow the stuff and bring up how any bad guy can make this stuff now but i want to be able to have the stuff legaly which includes submitting FBI fingerprint cards etc, anyone who goes through those steps is a good guy. CJG Provide her with a detailed comparison of an AR-15 pistol with an 11.5" barrel (legal) vs an AR-15 rifle with an 11.5" barrel (illegal).  Include pictures if you can. Ask her why, in her opinion, one is legal when the other is illegal.  Inform her that Ferraris are not necessary, should they be illegal?  I could provide a laundry list of inanimate objects that aren't necessary, yet aren't illegal [yet].

Even better

How many people died in Car accients in WA last year?  How many died in Bus accidents last year?

Obviously cars are not neccisary and quite dangerous.  People should be riding the bus. and cars should be banned.

Quoted: Even better How many people died in Car accients in WA last year?  How many died in Bus accidents last year? Obviously cars are not neccisary and quite dangerous.  People should be riding the bus. and cars should be banned.

Careful... Nickels is already trying to ban them...  Even towed a few that were PARKED on his "anti-car" day!

Umm.... I can really see that one backfiring...

She's going to tell you an AR pistol is unnecessary...

Ya I thought of that. She defenitly didnt choose her words very carefully when she responded, she should have realized to say something is unneccesary is pretty dumb, especially when it has something to do with our rights as a US citizen.  Any one else on here live in kitsap county. I would really like to bombard her with emails from multiple people on repealing this RCW, then mabe she will take it a little more seriously and be willing to at least listen to the people about what they want. Any one in Kitsap?

CJG

height=8

Quoted: Umm.... I can really see that one backfiring... She's going to tell you an AR pistol is unnecessary...

Ya she would probably freak out and try and ban those too.  Any other constructive ideas. her response almost seams as if she didnt even read the whole email, instead just saw it was about that RCW, googled it, saw it was about guns and then wrote that reply.

Quoted: Quoted: Umm.... I can really see that one backfiring... She's going to tell you an AR pistol is unnecessary... Ya she would probably freak out and try and ban those too.  Any other constructive ideas. her response almost seams as if she didnt even read the whole email, instead just saw it was about that RCW, googled it, saw it was about guns and then wrote that reply.

She can ban this!!

Quoted: Quoted: Umm.... I can really see that one backfiring... She's going to tell you an AR pistol is unnecessary... The horror of AR pistols has come up at anti-gun hearings in the WA legislature.

Recently?  Or just in the past?

Quoted: OK so i sent my rep basically that same letter but with my own opening paragraph and this is what i got back: Dear Dan, I appreciate you writing me with this cause.  I, for one, am not interested in repealing RCW 9.41.190.  I believe we have done the right thing with our statutes, preserving gun owner rights, and making illegal those things that are not necessary.  Again thanks for writing.     Sherry

doesn't this opinion kind of fly in the face of the recent heller decision which included in part that bans on specific classes of weapons were unconstitutional? She's supporting an illegal outright ban now correct? whereas NFA provisions of a sheriff signing off that the person wont use it unlawfully, multiple fingerprints, multiple forms, and a FBI background check, and BATFE approval and a tax on the transfer of the weapon would seem to go beyond reasonable restrictions as it is. Also the AR15 pistol thing should also be rather dead in the water since again outright bans on specific classes of weapons are specifically unconstitutional.

I got a very negative response from Rep Jim Moeller.

How about if we start up a fund to challenge this in court?

I'm in, how much and who do I send it to?

height=8

Quoted: I got a very negative response from Rep Jim Moeller. How about if we start up a fund to challenge this in court?

Can you post the response? I figure its at least good for a laugh.  

As far as a court challenge, I wonder if we could contact the NRA for additional funding/ advice on a recomended WA state lawyer who is knowledgable in this area?

Tonight i received a PM from jhasz, we are going to start coordinating our efforts in changing our representatives mind. If any one else is located in Kitsap, shoot me a PM.  Also anyone else reading this thread, google up your representative and submit the contact form telling them to ammend/repeal the part of this RCW which would facilitate the restoration of our pre 1994 rights.

CJG

Where do I send my money and my mouth.

Quoted: Quoted: I got a very negative response from Rep Jim Moeller. How about if we start up a fund to challenge this in court? Can you post the response? I figure its at least good for a laugh.   As far as a court challenge, I wonder if we could contact the NRA for additional funding/ advice on a recomended WA state lawyer who is knowledgable in this area? Tonight i received a PM from jhasz, we are going to start coordinating our efforts in changing our representatives mind. If any one else is located in Kitsap, shoot me a PM.  Also anyone else reading this thread, google up your representative and submit the contact form telling them to ammend/repeal the part of this RCW which would facilitate the restoration of our pre 1994 rights. CJG

This is the entire content of his response:

Sorry Procyon, But I'm not interested in changing the current law. Thanks for contacting me regarding this issue.

i would send money!

TAG!

Quoted: This is the entire content of his response: Sorry Procyon, But I'm not interested in changing the current law. Thanks for contacting me regarding this issue.

Likewise, Mr. Moeller, I'm no longer interested in supporting your candidacy and I'll do you one further, I'll support your opposition.

Likewise, Mr. Moeller, I'm no longer interested in supporting your candidacy and I'll do you one further, I'll support your opposition.

BINGO!  That sould most certainly be sent forth!

Well, I just wrote back my rep today with this:



Thank you very much for replying to my email.  Did you read through the whole email? Or did you just Google that RCW, see the subject matter and then respond in the way you did?  I would really like you to understand a little more in depth the federal rules that would still govern NFA ownership should this RCW be amended. I also would like to say; that perhaps I was a little unclear in saying that I wanted the whole RCW in question repealed. There is a growing movement among gun owners concerning this issue, and really our only goal is to get the RCW amended to exclude the part where it says NFA items must have been registered pre 1994.  We don’t have a problem with the rest of it.  What was the basis for that legislation in 1994?  Were there people that had submitted passport photos, FBI fingerprint cards, had FBI background check completed, had sheriff approval (all of this submitted to the ATF) that were misusing NFA items?  That’s what it takes to get NFA items when dealing with the feds.  The legal GOOD gun owners don't have a problem going through those extra steps as good faith to prove we ARE the good guys.  We just want our rights restored to the way they were pre 1994.  There have been NFA items since the 20’s and 30’s why did those in Olympia all of a sudden decide that NFA items were no longer NECCESARY?  We understand that we won’t be able to change all our representatives’ minds on this issue, but I would like to know just how steady your position is on this?  Because if we are unable to pursue this issue through legislation, we are considering bringing forth a lawsuit, which not only will cost US a lot of money, but also the tax payer (that’s me too!).  

Not only would this legislation give gun owners some of their rights back if they are willing to do more paperwork (most will not want to do the extra paperwork since NFA owners in most other states are a small percentage of gun owners). But it will also generate tax revenue since every NFA item acquired by a private individual requires a $200 tax to be paid; these moneys fund the ATF to keep the guns AWAY from the BAD guys and drugs off the streets.  Also new businesses would be established to construct NFA items in this state.  The gun industry is booming right now and this state and its citizens should be able to benefit from that industry.

I see this as a win for everyone, more revenue for the BATFE for drug and firearm enforcement from those $200 tax revenues. Those willing to comply with the federal rules as far as every ATF transfer requiring FBI background check and FBI fingerprint card as well as a sheriff sign off,  these people will get what they want.  AND the state will get more jobs, businesses from the new demand for NFA ownership.  

Let me know if you are at least willing to learn more and do some research, or if your position is solid.  

CJG    


We will see what she says, and hopefully my spelling wasnt too bad.

Quoted: I'm in, how much and who do I send it to?

I'd like to see exchanges from other arfcommers writing their reps/senator first.

After that, I think it'd be good to collect pledges before sending any money to anyone.

After we start to see decent $ in pledges, we should appoint a treasurer.  I'm still fairly new to the WA HTF, so I'd feel more comfortable if it weren't me.  I imagine this would involve setting up some sort of fund where contributions can be sent to -- anyone know anything about this?

Quoted: I got a very negative response from Rep Jim Moeller. How about if we start up a fund to challenge this in court?

IIRC, Moeller is a piece of shit and has been anti-gun since forever.

Quoted: I'd like to see exchanges from other arfcommers writing their reps/senator first. After that, I think it'd be good to collect pledges before sending any money to anyone. After we start to see decent $ in pledges, we should appoint a treasurer.  I'm still fairly new to the WA HTF, so I'd feel more comfortable if it weren't me.  I imagine this would involve setting up some sort of fund where contributions can be sent to -- anyone know anything about this?

I'm thinking first step would be to contact the GOA and NRA and try to get recommendations for attorneys and find one that would be willing to take the case. Then perhaps the attorney will let us just send funds to him and he'll file papers when he gets sufficient funding. Then the "treasurer" is only dealing with copies of checks to verify how much we have donated

Tagged for future developments.

Writing my Overlords...

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: I'd like to see exchanges from other arfcommers writing their reps/senator first. After that, I think it'd be good to collect pledges before sending any money to anyone. After we start to see decent $ in pledges, we should appoint a treasurer.  I'm still fairly new to the WA HTF, so I'd feel more comfortable if it weren't me.  I imagine this would involve setting up some sort of fund where contributions can be sent to -- anyone know anything about this? I'm thinking first step would be to contact the GOA and NRA and try to get recommendations for attorneys and find one that would be willing to take the case. Then perhaps the attorney will let us just send funds to him and he'll file papers when he gets sufficient funding. Then the "treasurer" is only dealing with copies of checks to verify how much we have donated

I also agree, I support this path. We keep bumping this thread up and getting people to write their reps.  We need the legislation to at least get written, then we have to put the pressure on oly to try and pass it. First though, we need a rep that will really take this on and help US push it.  We should try and figure out which rep is the most gun friendly and approach that person to write the legislation.

CJG

Quoted: I also agree, I support this path. We keep bumping this thread up and getting people to write their reps.  We need the legislation to at least get written, then we have to put the pressure on oly to try and pass it. First though, we need a rep that will really take this on and help US push it.  We should try and figure out which rep is the most gun friendly and approach that person to write the legislation. CJG

this is a E-mail i sent GOA:

To Whomever it may concern,     First I'd like to reference why I'm writing this, http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=15&t=317766     As I'm sure you are aware Washington state has some peculiar rules with regard to N.F.A. firearms. If a machine gun, short barreled rifle (SBR), or short barreled shotgun (SBS) was owned before 1994 it is allowed without issue. But no new SBS, SBR, and machine guns are allowed for citizens. Destructive devices have relatively no mention unless it regards storage of explosives. Silencers are allowed to be possessed but we can not use them. People who have wrote their representatives are getting replies that vary from not knowing of any firearms legislation to feeling that N.F.A. weapons are unnecessary and should be kept illegal. We are in the beginning stages of discussing filing a lawsuit to restore our rights. My question is if you can direct me to any lawyers that practice in our state that have any specialty in N.F.A. weapons or firearms specific attorneys in my state that we could interview to take this case for us and run with it. Thank you for your time and any help you can provide, my name and e-mail

That email looks good, thanks for doing that. I am going to contact the NRA on monday.  I started this thread in the legal section of these forums to tell people to come here:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=757229&page=1

If people want the link to look up their representatives, here it is:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/statewide.aspx

Email these people NOW and tell em to give us our rights back!

Here's a thought...

Ballot initiative, anyone?

Quoted: Here's a thought... Ballot initiative, anyone?

Enable King Kounty Kommies to vote on expanding gun rights?  Hmmm...