This deserves its own thread -

Sounds like the House may vote on HB2240 tomorrow,  Sunday, over a holiday weekend...nothing shady there.

Get busy, call/email - make your voices heard.

Helpful links:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

NRA-ILA Tool: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20200214/washington-house-to-vote-on-magazine-ban-bill?fbclid=IwAR0KNhL-0bDtveTCEwCUh2J0B1pkG_-sOQEYpv1c5EIQQQ18XVvjgP65GMU

Bill Information: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2240&Year=2019&Initiative=false

Git 'er done.

Boss

Folks - ALL Representatives in the House are up for re-election November 2020.

All of them.

Hit them hard now and remind them that some seats were narrowly won by Dems in 2018.  Keeping their jobs may not be so easy if they are on the official roll call as supporting anti-gun legislation.

Every day, more and more law-abiding Washington gun owners are getting informed, active and either registering to vote or dusting off their voter registration cards after a long absence from the polls.

ETA NRA-ILA Hot Link to Contact Your Reps - Vote "NO" on SHB 2240

Why are they voting on a Sunday?

Grandfathered only if you can PROVE that you purchased them before the prospective ban. Who all kept their receipts for every mag they purchased? F those D's. Hit your legislators hard!

Burden of proof rests on the State.

No way.  The judge will just say, "surrender your mags and charges dropped. "  They know most people aren't going to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to keep a few hundred bucks worth of mags.

The system exists to screw you.

Ostensibly because this year is a “short” session.  Odd years are 105 days and even years are 60 days.  There is usually the same overall amount of legislation proposed each session.  So, there will be a number of weekend and late into the night votes between now and 12 March (end of this year’s session).  SHB 2240 won’t be the only bill that will be voted on this Sunday.

Between you, me and the fence post: I am quite certain the anti’s were hoping to fly this one under the radar and get a floor vote while the pro-gun crowd was not looking.

But somebody let the cat out of the bag...

That hasnt even happened in kalifornia

Emails sent but does anyone have any idea of what this may look like? If this thing goes to vote what are the chances it passes?

Hmmm, yeah, lemme see...particularly on a holiday weekend...that's a head scratcher

Regardless, write, call, share, repeat.

Boss

Just sent the following to all members of the House (though formatted better than this forum allows):

Honorable Representatives:

It has come to my attention that a floor vote on HB 2240 has been scheduled.  I urge you ALL to vote NO.

On top of the MAJOR flawed premise that a magazine capacity restriction would have ANY IMPACT on crime or severity of crime (it has been demonstrated already in those few states that have enacted such restrictions that there is no such impact), there are several specific issues with this proposal:

- The 15 round "compromise" is NOT acceptable and is JUST AS BAD and UNACCEPTABLE as 10!
- Essentially all modern firearms use magazines that hold 10, 15 or more rounds of ammunition (ex:  13 rounds in the Browning Hi Power in 1935; 20 rounds in the AR-15 in 1963)
- WA has no systems in place whatsoever to register existing magazines
- Magazines generally are NOT marked with any information that identifies them as individuals.  One made and bought yesterday looks lust like one made and purchased 10 years ago.
- The proposal requires owners to PROVE that they owned the magazines before the ban, which is impossible and essentially criminalizes 10s of thousands of WA gun owners.  See the above point regarding impossibility of identifying individual magazines.  
- The Washington Mass Shootings Work Group explicitly DID NOT recommend a mag ban or AWB, even when asked to do so by the Attorney General.  The law enforcement personnel making up the work group knew that such restrictions will not change already-falling violent crime rates.
- The CA ban is being challenged in the 9th circuit in April, 2019.  Why pass a law that has at least a ~50% chance of being immediate struck down during a short session when time is crucial? There are more important bills.
- The CO ban is so flawed, unenforceable and unpopular that it is almost entirely ignored by law enforcement and the courts.
-  The “locked up” provision for even legally possessed magazines places ridiculously burdensome and pointless restrictions on people who may need to use them in an life-threatening situation.  Note that most sportsmen and target shooters routinely load their magazines at home to safe valuable time at the range for shooting rather than loading magazines.  A magazine by itself poses no more danger than a can of soup.

Please stand with law-abiding citizens in support of the Second Amendment and oppose this misguided gun control agenda.  Punishing law-abiding gun owners for the acts of criminals is flat out wrong and won’t solve any of the mental health and behavioral problems that we need to do something about.  Criminals, by definition, DO NOT OBEY LAWS.  There are more than enough laws and restrictions on the books now to deter anyone who CAN be deterred.

Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24
"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."

Again, please oppose HB 2240.  Thank you.

Mr. and Mrs. Teddydog
Dupont, WA

Wut??! I never saw that in any of the bills.

I just re-read both SHB 2240 and SB 6077 and the only place I can see where one has to prove that the magazines were purchased prior to the date of the law becoming effective (which it has not I want to stress) is the transfer from a decedent's estate.

To quote both bills:  "...acquires possession  of  the  large  capacity  magazine  by  operation  of  law  upon the  death  of  the  former  owner  who  was  in  legal  possession  of  the large  capacity  magazine,  provided  the  person  in  possession  of  the large  capacity  magazine  can  establish  such  provenance. "

Here's the section.

10 (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any of the
following:11
12 (a) The possession of a large capacity magazine by a person who
13 legally possessed the large capacity magazine on the effective date
14 of this section, or possession of a large capacity magazine by a
15 person who, on or after the effective date of this section, acquires
16 possession of the large capacity magazine by operation of law upon
17 the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the
18 large capacity magazine, provided the person in possession of the
19 large capacity magazine can establish such provenance. A person who
20 legally possesses a large capacity magazine under this subsection may
21 not sell or transfer the magazine to any other person in this state
1 other than to a licensed dealer, to a federally licensed gunsmith for
2 the purpose of service or repair, or to a law enforcement agency for
3 the purpose of permanently relinquishing the large capacity magazine;

I'm not a lawyer or law writer.  I would say it depends on how those commas are interpreted and which clause they modify.

If interpreted as this:

12 (a) The possession of a large capacity magazine by a person who
13 legally possessed the large capacity magazine on the effective date
14 of this section,

then this separately...

14...or possession of a large capacity magazine by a
15 person who, on or after the effective date of this section, acquires
16 possession of the large capacity magazine by operation of law upon
17 the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the
18 large capacity magazine, provided the person in possession of the
19 large capacity magazine can establish such provenance.

then yes, it would seem to say that only those who inherit must prove the ownership.

BUT, if it is read like this:

12 (a) The possession of a large capacity magazine by a person who
13 legally possessed the large capacity magazine on the effective date
14 of this section,

OR

14...or possession of a large capacity magazine by a
15 person who, on or after the effective date of this section, acquires
16 possession of the large capacity magazine by operation of law upon
17 the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the
18 large capacity magazine,

AND then THIS to both of the above

18...provided the person in possession of the
19 large capacity magazine can establish such provenance.

This way it seems to say both types of possessors must prove provenance.

Seems very poorly written to me.  Clear as mud.  Just what I expect of our legislature.

Rob

Totally

Emailed House Representatives tonight opposing HB 2240.

Thanks for the update!

Sent it again.  I have only received one reply, from Andy Billig.  His responses are only of the "take your comment into consideration", and he claims to be "pro second amendment/common sense gun control" as he was a big supporter of 594.  Keep up the fight guys.

Shared on social media.

Emails sent.

Update bump?

Rumor only that SHB 2240 will not be voted on today after all.  Current bills being heard/voted all relate to housing (affordable).

Watch Live on TVW

House Floor Calendar with Real Time Updates

Now on to greenhouse gasses

Does it just move to a diff date or does it mean it is dead

Technically - nothing is dead until sine die (the last day of session, when the gavel hits the wood).

However - the hurdles get even higher after 19 February (2nd cut off).

Keep the pressure up!!!

We are having impact!!!

I don't have the opportunity right now to go dig up the details, however there are a number of Dems who won their seats with just a few hundred votes.  One - and I can't remember who - won by just 104 votes.

The more we hammer these reps on SHB 2240, the more nervous about re-election they become.

If they can stall the bill, they don't have to go on record either way (go on the official roll call as a "yea" or "ney").

Our emails, calls and letters ARE WORKING!!

DO NOT GIVE UP!!!

Now they are debating compost.  Seems appropriate LOL

So what’s the deal?  They push this debate back to a later date?

Right now, the House is in caucus.  I don't know when floor activity will resume.  SHB 2240 is on the calendar, so it can technically come up for a floor vote at any time between now and 12 March (sine die - the official end of session).

I have heard rumors that some more amendments have been proposed, but I cannot confirm these rumors at this time.  This would slow the bill down some more.

I have two friends that have been in Olympia since noon, in the gallery, passing notes to the House legislators.  They are STILL there as of 8:00 PM tonight 2/16/20.

They said Orange Mafia folks bailed out a long time ago.

I'm proud of my friends , and ashamed of myself for not being there too.  

One was born in Venezuela, the other in Taiwan.  I think they know more than most what is at stake here.

DO NOT BE ASHAMED!!!

No action in this fight is too small!!!  As long as you are doing SOMETHING you are contributing!!!

So true!

@twodeucetrey thank you for the updates.

Thanks for the updates.  Please keep posting updates as things move along in the coming days so my family knows when to send more emails and make more calls.  Thx

Attached File

emailed again!

thanks