Now is the time to start talking to your Representatives in Olympia about the SBS / SBR bills. Hearings are being scheduled and we do not want to miss the opportunity to get our bill into committee and passed along for a vote. In 2010 there were 4700 bills sponsored, almost 1000 of them were allowed a vote on the House and Senate floors with greater than 90% passing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is why bill 2098 should be passed into law.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randy Bragge
360 440 5889  

Or you could have just posted in the other thread.

This one works.  The other one wasn't specifically about SBR's.

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

Just wrote to my reps. Looks like one of them is a sponsor, that makes me feel good about voting for him.

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

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

To arms! To arms! Thanks Randy, sounds like its time to start paying close attention again. I will post an update on Facebooks N.F.A. Page.

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

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

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

Ranb

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

Ranb

Edited to add;  Opps, I found it.  I even posted on the thread.  :)

Strong work on your part.

I will get an Email fired off tonight.

Same set of bills drawn up at the end of the last session.  No pork, as Blake is keeping these bills plane and simple.

 

Links to the bills are hot.

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


#2099 - SBR and SBS

#2098 - SBR only

Ditto

I wrote my two reps(one is a co-sponsor), and my senator today.

Anyone want to share a boilerplate email we can use?

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

I will take a stab at an e-mail we can circulate if you think it will help. Just keep in mind I am not an attourney or a proffesional lobbyist nor do I play one on TV.

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

Somewhere, I would include mention that shorter-barreled hunting firearms are extremely suited to and useful in the unique, dense forests of Western Washington.

]I agree 100%

Does anyone know someone who currently owns a legal SBR, since they were legal to own prior to 1994?  (Excluding SOT's who can make them)

Here is a copy of the letter I sent one of my representatives.



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

Randy

I know of one member here that has one.

Thanks Wombat.  Maybe you could contact them and see if they might be a willing participant in this process.  Have them PM me if they are interested, please.

Personally I think when communicating to our representatives or the public avoiding the term "sawed off" altogether is smart.  It conjures images of hacksaws in garages and that's not what we're wanting as a community.

I was contrasting what some people think of them to what they actually are.  Kathy Haigh is familiar with firearms as she is a veterinarian.  When I spoke to her about the silencer bill, I referred to them as sound suppressors and she asked me "Do you mean silencers?"  She is not one to be intimidated by mere words.  But I did feel I needed to explain things a bit.

It may be a good idea to avoid using the term with those that have no experience with guns.

Ranb    

Kathy is a pretty good person.

I am afraid I can't be much help this time around though I would truly like to be. I am in the middle of a home purchase and a move  Beginning in January which is when things are likely to get fired up right? I am hoping to have my machine shop operational in June if all goes well.

OK just got an e-mail from Rep Blakes office. So far I think the bill has not been scheduled for a hearing? Maybe time to start calling and writing. I will take e-mails from people if you want to join forces. I would love to see this get changed. I will have just over a week off next week and I plan to spend time on this deal. [email protected]   Also facebook has Northwest Firearms Association.

I wrote Rep. Ahern to thank them for their support.
Rep. Kevin Parker is a yes vote I emailed as well

Have not heard back from Sen. Baumgertner.

Thanks for that. I need to spend some of this coming week writing letters.  Randy if you can e-mail me or call I would like to talk a bit. (253)632-5643 .   machineguntom4 @ DELETE yahoo.com

OK so who's still in on the SBS SBR bill? RIght now it's not even scheduled for a judiciary hearing that I know of. Sounds like some input from constituents is needed.

I will write letters, who to, and do you have a form letter?

Calls, emails, and letters are done.

I posted my letter on page one of this thread.  Feel free to use it for ideas but do not directly copy it.

Ranb

Will do thanks

You can go to the WA state house of reps page for listings of your representatives. Write as many as you can and explain that this bill hurts none and restores our previous rights to register SBS and SBR's. Explain the track record of registered owners VS those who don't register their weapons and how  the last 18 years of prohibition   have done nothing to stop the crime of unregistered ownership and other crimes associated with those weapons.

Just read on Subguns.com that the CLEO requirement is going to go the way of the Dodo. Who wants their short barreled weapons back? This guy does! Who's with me!?

OK I just launched an offensive on the House Judiciary committee asking them all for a meeting or phone conversation. I e-mailed all of them stating that I supported the bill and why. It's worth noting that Randy's research has turned up zero crimes commited with a regsitered weapon in the hands of it's proper owner. Thats from 1934-1994, 60 years,  zero crimes.  This does not include unregistered possessors of short barreled weapons. There were some reported there of course.

I'll have to write some reps. Suppressors just don't look right on 16" barrels.

Quite right! Suppressors SHOULD Be on shorter barrels. By the way, I got my first  response from my bulk mailing the judiciary committee members, I was informed to direct my letters to the bills sponsors not the committee members. OK good to know, tommorow night I will do just that!

Any chance we can get this topic stickied at the top of this page? It's a current issue that will effect those of use who are NFA enthusiasts in this state.

I'm in Skagit county. Who in Olympia do I send an email to?

What he said.

Go to the WA state house of representatives webpage and there are search tools there to help you find your reps. If this is too difficult, send me a e-mail and I will find the link for you. Right now we need to send e-mails and correspondance to the bill sponsor and co-signers and ask for a judiciary hearing of the bill. When (if) it gets heard then we will need to organize to show up for said hearing. I know, previously I said to contact the judiciary commitee members, this was a mistake. Its the bill sponsor and co-sponsors who need to be asked to support this bill. You also can do a websearch for HB2099 WA state, it may give you the link you need.

I wrote to Blake a couple of weeks ago:
"Sir,  I've been a police officer of some sort in western Washington for the last 20 years and have been teaching firearms and tactics since 1996. As you probably know, the majority of agencies in our state require individual officers to supply rifles if they wish to carry them. As our cars get smaller and we are loaded up with more equipment to "make our jobs easier", having access to a weapon that is easily accessible makes more and more sense and a full size rifle just does not fit the bill. Giving officers the ability to purchase a short rifle or shotgun would be a huge benefit to us and even though it's more expensive, I am sure plenty of cops will take advantage of the opportunity. Thanks for introducing and pushing this bill. Please don't let it fall by the wayside. Let me know how I can help."

This was his reply:
Please have your colleagues statewide ask for the bill to have a hearing in House Judiciary Committee. If it is scheduled for a hearing make sure law enforcement testifies in support of the Bill. Thanks for your help, now is the time to push for a hearing to be scheduled in January. Brian Blake

Rep Overstreet had this to say:
"The best way to move this forward in committee is to contact the House Judiciary Committee Chair and members urging them to give this bill a hearing and a vote.  Lots of bills die a slow, painful death, never having been heard or voted on in committee.

Respectfully,

Jason Overstreet"

Kind of confusing.....now we go back to Blake?

Regardless, if you're a cop, and I know plenty of you are, don't be a noodleback and write your reps. These rights need to be restored for everyone and just because you're one of the lucky few to get issued an SBR, that's no excuse to let this slide. Help everyone else out and get this moving.

Contact YOUR reps to have them put pressure on the Judiciary committee members so that this biill can get a hearing.

Brian Blake is the primary sponsor of this bill.  Brian, myself, and RanB met last year to discuss the process of running this legislation.  Brian Blake is all for it, so there is no need to contact him about it.

You need to contact members of the judiciary committee, primarily Pederson, as well as your reps, to see if we can get a hearing.  We have until about the middle of March or so before the bill dies, so there is plenty of time, but there are also a lot of other very important issues out there.  Yes, SBR's and SBS's would be awesome and cool for us to have, but it isn't a priority in reality.  Hopefully someone, like Pederson, will need Brian's or another rep's support on primary issue legislation, so that we can get a hearing.  Lots of trades happen up there.  (A lot of us had jaw reconstruction surgery after Kline said there said "there was a lot of love for the suppressor legislation.")  

Call, email, and write letters to YOUR reps.  Copy Pederson on any emails you send.

I heard the bill was in trouble.

Here are some good links.

WA legislature

Find your legislator

Legislator e-mail list

Bill Search

Bill 2099

Ranb

I like you, but that isn't cute.  Really, stop the bullshit.  Thanks.