Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/19/2006 9:43:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 8:59:30 AM EDT by Phil_in_Seattle]

GOAL ALERT GOAL ALERT GOAL ALERT GOAL ALERT

IT’S SHOWTIME!

PUBLIC HEARING ON SB 5343

The schedule has been amended. There WILL be a public hearing on SB 5343
(“gun show loophole”) next Tuesday.

WHO: Senate Judiciary Committee

WHAT: Public hearing on SB 5343

WHERE: Senate Hearing Room 1

John A. Cherberg Building

Capitol Campus

Olympia

WHEN: Tuesday, 24 January

3:30—5:30 p.m.

It is important that as many individuals as possible attend this
hearing. Last year when the Judiciary Committee ran several anti-gun
bills in one hearing, nearly 400 gun owners showed up and sent a clear
message to the legislature:

DON’T MESS WITH THE GUN LOBBY

We need a repeat performance this year. Last year Washington Ceasefire
and other gun control proponents were unprepared. About a dozen showed
up, with weak testimony. And our show of strength convinced committee
members to keep those bills right there in committee, where they died
later in the session.

Parking at the campus is very tight. Plan to carpool, and plan to park
in an overflow lot about 4-5 blocks east of the campus. A shuttle will
carry you to the Cherberg Building.

It’s not necessary to testify, just be there to lend support to other
gun owners there. Wear your NRA cap, or gun club cap, or Cabela’s cap,
or your gun club or WAC badge. You don’t have to wear a three piece
suit, but your attire should be clean and neat. Camouflage isn’t
necessary – we’re not trying to hide! Let everyone knows who sees you
that you’re there to protect your rights.

And remember, this is Olympia, not D.C.. The Second Amendment is a
federal issue. Washington’s constitutional right-to-keep-and-bear-arms
provision is Article 1, Section 24, and it’s clearer than the 2nd
Amendment: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the state shall not be impaired…” Pretty clear.

When the hearing room opens (usually about 3:20 or 3:25), staff will lay
out sign-in sheets on a table in the back of the room. First in line
should be the sheet for SB 5343. Sign in with your name, address,
telephone number and e-mail address (the last two are optional). Add
“CON” (against) for a position on the bill. Fill in “yes” or “no” if you
wish or do not wish to testify. Copies of the bill and a bill summary
will be on the table as well.

If you want testify, remember: you’re limited to three minutes maximum
(the chair may only give you two minutes); you cannot attack anyone’s
motives (no Washington Ceasefire name-calling!); start with your name
and where you’re from; try to limit your testimony to one or two
specific points; and if someone else has already that point, choose
another one or defer to the next person.

IF YOU CAN’T MAKE IT TO OLYMPIA (and even if you can be there), IT IS
IMPERATIVE that you contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
and express your OPPOSITION to SB 5343. The following points may be
helpful:

The "gun show loophole" is a contrived issue. All applicable federal

and state gun laws must be followed at any gun show.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, gun shows account for

less than 1% of firearms obtained by felons. Gun and pawn shops --

all of which require background checks -- account for 12.1%.

78% of felons get their guns either from "family and friends" (usually

an illegal strawman purchase by a friend with no criminal record) or

"on the street" (i.e. the black market).

The so-called "private dealer" does not exist. Like the term "gun show

loophole" itself, "private dealer" is a gun control group oxymoron. A

private sale is a private sale, whether it occurs over your backyard

fence, at your gun club or at a gun show. And both federal and state

law already prohibit sale of a firearm to ANYONE you believe MAY be

prohibited from possessing a firearm.

For Washington Arms Collectors members, passage of SB 5343, with it's

point-of-sale background check required for every gun transfer at a gun

show will mean WAC's membership program will be effectively eliminated.

SB 5343 authorizes the Washington State Patrol to "set a reasonable

fee" for background checks at gun shows. WHY? WSP is not involved in

background checks today. Nor would they be under SB 5343. FFL

background checks go either to the FBI NICS center or to local law

enforcement officials. This amounts to a "poll tax," a fee to exercise

a constitutional right!

PLEASE CALL SENATE JUDICIARY MEMBERS TODAY!

Give them the message: "OPPOSE SB 5343. Background checks at gun shows

are unnecessary. Existing law already makes it a felony for ANYONE to
deliver a firearm to a person the seller has reason to believe is
prohibited from possessing a firearm. Gun shows are NOT the problem.
Failure to prosecute

strawman and black market sales is the problem.

Call the following Senate Judiciary Committee members and urge them to

"OPPOSE SB 5343, oppose unnecessary and costly background checks at gun

shows."

You can call them direct at their Olympia office telephone number listed

below or through the toll free Legislation Hotline at

1 (800) 562-6000.

CALL TODAY

Senator Adam Kline (360) 786-7688

kline.adam@leg.wa.gov

Senator Luke Esser (360) 786-7694

esser.luke@leg.wa.gov

Senator James Hargrove (360) 786-7646

hargrove.jim@leg.wa.gov

Senator Marilyn Rasmussen (360) 786-7602

rasmussen.marilyn@leg.wa.gov

Senator Mike Carrell (360) 786-7654

carrel.michael@leg.wa.gov

Senator Pat Thibaudeau (360) 786-7628

thibaudeau.pat@leg.wa.gov

Senator Brian Weinstein (360) 786-7641

weinstein.brian@leg.wa.gov

Senator Bob McCaslin (360) 786-7606

mccaslin.bob@leg.wa.gov

Senator Steve Johnson (360) 786-7692

johnson.stephen@leg.wa.gov

One last thing: please forward this e-mail to anyone you believe would
be interested. Please make a hard copy and post it at your gun club or
leave a copy with your favorite gun shop.



Text of SB 5343 is available here:
apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2006&bill=5343


Judiciary* - 01/24/06 3:30 pm
Senate Full Committee
Senate Hearing Rm 1
J. A. Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA

REVISED 01/19/06 4:38 PM

Public Hearing:

1. SB 5343 - Regulating the sale of firearms at gun shows and events.
2. SB 6404 - Regarding the certification of tribal police officers.
3. SB 6492 - Authorizing conversion of legal financial obligations to community restitution.
4. SB 6572 - Revising the unlawful detainer process under the residential landlord-tenant act.
5. SB 6547 - Clarifying procedures for sound and video recordings by law enforcement officers.
6. SB 6590 - Changing the effective date of the uniform interstate family support act.


Possible executive session on bills heard in committee. Other business.

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:56:49 PM EDT
I actually get off of work early Monday so I may be able to make this. I won't be working all night so it's possible.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:55:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 6:56:01 AM EDT by twoducetrey]
For those that may not know where the John A. Cherberg building is, here is a link to a map of the Capitol Campus: Capitol Campus Map

It's in .pdf format, FYI

Trey

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 10:13:47 AM EDT
I will make an effort to be there.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 10:36:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 10:38:33 AM EDT by AssaultPossum]
Thanx for posting this. Is anyone from the Bothell or Bellevue/Redmond area going?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 10:36:31 AM EDT
I will be there. Figured I'd need to so I arranged a day off of work, even though we're in a 3 month programming crunch. Since I will apparently only need a half day, I could possibly go up again.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:22:29 AM EDT
I am going to try but at the very least I am going to make some calls and emails.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 8:01:01 AM EDT
+
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 5:34:38 AM EDT
Tomorrow.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 2:08:39 PM EDT
For what it is worth, Call and E-mail made...


Good luck to you going down there.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:30:46 PM EDT
So, I was going over the text of the proposed law (SB 5343) as well as reading GOAL's talking points. And a couple funny bits jumped out at me as potentially VERY nasty. Check out the bits defining "dealer" and "gun show or event" below. The first would appear to label anyone conducting a sale at a "gun show or event" as a dealer. The second would appear to make gun show organizers responsible for policing parking lots (possibly an undefined amount of nearby streets) for sales not involving background checks.

This is a very weird an creepy law.


(10) "Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of selling
firearms at wholesale or retail who has, or is required to have, a
federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a). A person who
does not have, and is not required to have, a federal firearms license
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a), is not a dealer if that person makes only
occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the
enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or sells all or
part of his or her personal collection of firearms, in a private
transaction not through a gun show or event.

(18)(a) "Gun show or event" means a place or event, a gun trade
show, gun collectors' show, flea market, or auction, other than a
permanent retail store, at which three or more individuals assemble to
display, sell, lease, or transfer new or used firearms or firearm
components to the public and that is not exempt from collecting sales
tax under RCW 82.08.0251.
(b) "Gun show or event" includes a place or event where ten or more
firearms are offered for transfer or transferred.
(c) "Gun show or event" includes, but is not limited to, an area
near the gun show or event that the sponsor knows or should reasonably
know will be used for parking for the gun show or event.

Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:47:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 8:48:12 PM EDT by Phil_in_Seattle]

Originally Posted By donbcivil:
So, I was going over the text of the proposed law (SB 5343) as well as reading GOAL's talking points. And a couple funny bits jumped out at me as potentially VERY nasty. Check out the bits defining "dealer" and "gun show or event" below. The first would appear to label anyone conducting a sale at a "gun show or event" as a dealer. The second would appear to make gun show organizers responsible for policing parking lots (possibly an undefined amount of nearby streets) for sales not involving background checks.

This is a very weird an creepy law.



It's even worse than that:



(5) A person who organizes, promotes, or otherwise sponsors a gun
show or event shall:
(a) Ensure that any person who, while at the gun show or event,
offers to sell or transfer a firearm to another person complies with
the requirements of subsection (2)(a) of this section;



Section (2)(a) being the background check.

In other words someone is going to be responsible for the impossible task of making sure that EVERY deal that is done has a NICS check done or be subject to the penalty for a gross misdemeanor which if I read the RCWs correctly is up to a year in jail, up to a $5000 fine, or both. That's right if a table renter decides to do an under the table deal, the person who organizes, promotes, or otherwise sponsors a gun
show or event is criminally liable for the actions of another.

BTW- if HABU mentions to me at a show that he's thinking about getting rid of his Pre-27, that is safely locked in his safe at home, and I tell him that I'll buy it from him we'd both be in violation of this proposed law.

The bill if passed would KILL gun shows in WA, because no one would hold them for fear of being criminally liable for the actions of table holders and attendees.

I can find nothing in OR or CA law that is similar to those provisions of this proposed law.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 10:27:27 PM EDT
Emails sent to each senator. Hopefully it will help as that is the limit of what I can do.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 6:28:04 AM EDT

I can find nothing in OR or CA law that is similar to those provisions of this proposed law.


Yeah but in CA, ALL sales have to take place through a dealer. I think that's where they're going with this...once that kind of law is in place, there's no plausible deniability in case of mass confiscation ("Oh, sold my AR 2 years ago. Have a nice day!").
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:05:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By donbcivil:

I can find nothing in OR or CA law that is similar to those provisions of this proposed law.


Yeah but in CA, ALL sales have to take place through a dealer. I think that's where they're going with this...once that kind of law is in place, there's no plausible deniability in case of mass confiscation ("Oh, sold my AR 2 years ago. Have a nice day!").



This is true but the antis aren't phrasing it that way, most likely in a feeble attempt to conceal their goal of eliminating all person to person sales, they are comparing WAs lack of gun show laws directly to CA and OR. The way I stated it puts the burden back onto the antis and puts them in a tough spot if they want to continue to try and conceal that agenda.

I've seen nothin in the OR or CA laws that holds the show holder criminally liable if the rules aren't followed by other parties. That part of the bill is truely insane.


Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:56:10 AM EDT
Map
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 3:50:37 PM EDT
Any updates on how things went?
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 5:40:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2006 7:38:47 PM EDT by FS-FNRL]
After Action Report Oly Trip

So it went okay today. It was a standing room only crowd in the hearing room. I’d guess about an 80% con and 20% pro for the split. Only an hour or so was allowed for testimony. 6 from our side and 6 from the other side. Done as 2 groups of 3 given about 8 minutes each total. It took awhile to get everyone in the room and signed in for the hearing.

edited to remove info that was not supposed to be here

I did see my senator in the hallway after the firearms hearing. She was talking with a constituent that is an FFL dealer, and a black powder shooter. She was writing down how the bill should be amended and why from him. They seemed to know each other very well (donor or long time friend). After that conversation I think that the votes are there to get this one out of committee. Send letters and faxes NOW!!!

I’d guess about an 80% con and 20% pro for the split.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:23:15 PM EDT
It was interesting, I'd never been to a commitee hearing before. I signed up to testify but wasn't called due to the format used.

It was a little hard to tell who was for/against the bill but ther were a lot of NRA/WAC/OlyArms shirts and buttons visible.

Kline stinks on ice, he made it very clear that the so-called "gun show loophole" is only one of several "loopholes" he wants to see addressed....specifically mentioning the "private sale loophole". Hargrove asked questions that made it seem like he is still against bad laws. Rasmussen (also a Dem) made comments about winning and buying firearms herself.

The WA police chiefs' org guys testified for the bill but made a point of saying (for what it's worth) things that sounded like good folks have a right to own guns. I wonder if we can get some street cops to testify in future hearings.

Joe Waldron kicked ass, as usual and Brian Judy of the NRA also made some good points. The third guy in the first anti-5343 set was decent.

CeaseFire and the Brady wankers did their usual shtick, one of them entertaining the crowd with his blathering about how easily you can get those evil Salt Weapons and .50s calibers.

The second set of anti-5343 guys had two guys who didn't quite have their act together and one guy who was good who I'm guessing was PHIL_IN_SEATTLE. Wanted to go up and say hi when the session split but I think he'd gone already. He made some points that PHIL_IN_SEATTLE has touched on here, e.g., ways in which this law is worse than Oregon and CA law.

I don't think this bill is a slam dunk, think we have a shot at fighting it.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:26:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2006 7:34:34 PM EDT by Phil_in_Seattle]
I just got back from Olympia.

The turn out was good, very good for a one gun bill agenda. I'd estimate 130-150 people in the room and SB5343 as the first one heard. When we finished and left there were only about a dozen people left in the room with 5 bills left to be heard.

There were 10 antis for sure(8 of them being paid to be there), and easily 75 progun people that I recognize from our side. Including RS_Coyote and Cherry 45 plus uncle Ira


1. SB 5343 - Regulating the sale of firearms at gun shows and events.
2. SB 6404 - Regarding the certification of tribal police officers.
3. SB 6492 - Authorizing conversion of legal financial obligations to community restitution.
4. SB 6572 - Revising the unlawful detainer process under the residential landlord-tenant act.
5. SB 6547 - Clarifying procedures for sound and video recordings by law enforcement officers.
6. SB 6590 - Changing the effective date of the uniform interstate family support act.



As FS-FNRL said 6 people spoke for each side pro vs con, with three speakers forming a panel and being alloted 8 minutes for the panel then a panel from the other side spoke.

First up was a panel from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC):
Don Pierce WASPC Executive Director
Scott Smith - Chief Mountlake Terrace
and Robert Berg Chief of Police for Centralia

Senator Hargrove(D) questioned chief Smith on the private sale loophole, and did he advocate closing that, Smith replied in the affirmative. Senator Kline rebuffed Senator Hargrove by saying they weren;t going to argue about slippery slopes.

Marilyn Rasmussen (D) asked the panel that because the sheriffs and police are at gun shows anyway during their free time if they'd be willing to set up a booth to allow anyone who wanted to be able to check a sale out do a background check to do so, and SMiths reply was that the dealers already have access to NICS.

When asked by Senator Hargrove if there are any documented cases in Washington of guns being bought at a gun show and then used in a crime he replied, I'm sure that there are, I don't have any.

A panel from the against the bill side then spoke. (please forgive me any mistakes with the names)
Joe Waldron
Brian Jody
David Renard.

Joe Waldron tore the bill apart, including that it specifies an inferior background check databaase NCIC instead of NICS
The point was brought up that while the chiefs were here to testify for the bill, the rank and file officers do not support it, including the police firearms training association(whatever it's real name is)

David Renard took Kline to task for the short notice of the meeting and Kline responded that he instructed the committee staff to publish the meeting in the schedule exactly five days ahead as required. The odd thing is that Mr Renard had a copy of the schedule that he apparantly gets via the USPS and the meeting wasn't listed.

The next group of antis up were:

Natalie Rober Exec Director for WA Ceasefire
Ralph Faschitille President of WA Ceasefire
Arianna who is also from Ceasefire and has worked on the CO and OR anti gun show campaigns.

Natalie testimony=standard schlock

Ralph however went off the deep end.
Do you know that he went to a gunshow a month ago and was shocked by the firepower that was available, 50 caliber weapons that can shoot a plan down from two miles away. When he asked a seller what kind of paperwork he needed to buy one he was told the only paperwork he needed was cash. Claimed the 50 caliber was a tank stopper you can shoot down a plane and shoot down a tank with one.

He cited the alledged Ceasefire poll that claims to have asked 403 people whether they would be more or less likely to support candidates who wanted to close a loophole in state law that allows gun sales without background checks at gun shows. claiming that more than 70 percent of the people surveyed said they would be more likely to support such a candidate.

(nevermind the PI poll that shows the opposite 71.1% against background checks on all sales at shows to 28.2% and .6% don't know or care)

Senator Johnson (R) asked Faschitille if he knew of any crimes committed with a 50 caliber and the reply was I don't know. Senator Kline asked if we should just wait until someone shoots through a building to do something about then.

The next and last Pro-Gun panel was:
Mr Cooper
I didn't get the other guys name
and


ME


I don't have notes on this panel, Mr Cooper closed with a great point, but I can't recall the quote, it had to do with nor worrying about the law as it's intended but worry about it as it's written.
#2 quashed the bill with points from the state constitution (after really ranting against the Ceasefire liars)

Then there was me, why Kline called on me I don't know, he has to recognize my name, as I've certainly called and written enough. Maybe he just wanted to get a look at me so he can avoid crossing my path.

Time was short as my co-panalists had already used in excess of 10 minutes so I limited myself to one point. That point being that this bill will kill gunshows in WA.

While the proponents of this bill are claiming that gun shows are thriving in states that have enacted laws to close the "gunshowloophole" I've read the OR and CA laws and I've seen nothing that would hold the person who runs the show how holder criminally liable if the rules aren't followed by other parties. Criminally liable for up to 1yr in jail and a $5,000 fine for something they have no control over.

No one will run a gun show with that sword hanging over their head.

Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:58:51 PM EDT
By far Phil's speech was one of the best and to the point. We did have a few goof balls up there talking out there ass. It would be nice if we could get more intelligent people up there to represent us in the future.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 8:15:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By donbcivil:
I wonder if we can get some street cops to testify in future hearings.




I would go down in full service uniform in a minute.

Link Posted: 1/24/2006 8:20:29 PM EDT

It would be nice if we could get more intelligent people up there to represent us in the future.


I signed up to testify but, honestly, I was nervous about doing it. One thing that could've helped was having some sort of practice session or two. Maybe, get a group of people togther a month or so before the leg session opens and practice debating the issues on the fly.

Phil did a nice job with a pared down time slice.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 8:46:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By donbcivil:
I wonder if we can get some street cops to testify in future hearings.




I would go down in full service uniform in a minute.




Then we hope to see you the next time, and any other uniforms you can bring with you.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 1:22:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RS_Coyote:
By far Phil's speech was one of the best and to the point. We did have a few goof ballsh.gif up there talking out there ass. It would be nice if we could get more intelligent people up there to represent us in the future.



The thing here is committee ownership. Kline is the chair of the committee because he put in his dues with the Dem caucus and so when we let them take over Olympia, he got that committee as his lollipop. And, it was the chair who chose who got to speak. In some cases he had to pick good names (Waldron and Judy have political recognition and pressure would have been put on Kline if they hadn't been called), in some cases he called some pretty good speakers I hadn't heard before, and in other cases I think maybe he wasn't calling the folks you and I would have chosen to represent our side... Anywhoo, overall I thought it went pretty well.

As for turnout, I'm pretty sure that last year (when they had the same language) 250+ people turned out. Actually, Brian Judy told me he thought it was almost 400. I know I had heard that they overflowed into a conference room with a video of it and then from that out to the courtyard. We did not do that well this time, which is a little spooky imho. But it was good to see a full room. Next time I'll check in here beforehand and try to meet some people f2f. -Boyd
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 2:48:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Clawista92:

Originally Posted By RS_Coyote:
By far Phil's speech was one of the best and to the point. We did have a few goof balls up there talking out there ass. It would be nice if we could get more intelligent people up there to represent us in the future.



The thing here is committee ownership. Kline is the chair of the committee because he put in his dues with the Dem caucus and so when we let them take over Olympia, he got that committee as his lollipop. And, it was the chair who chose who got to speak. In some cases he had to pick good names (Waldron and Judy have political recognition and pressure would have been put on Kline if they hadn't been called), in some cases he called some pretty good speakers I hadn't heard before, and in other cases I think maybe he wasn't calling the folks you and I would have chosen to represent our side... Anywhoo, overall I thought it went pretty well.

As for turnout, I'm pretty sure that last year (when they had the same language) 250+ people turned out. Actually, Brian Judy told me he thought it was almost 400. I know I had heard that they overflowed into a conference room with a video of it and then from that out to the courtyard. We did not do that well this time, which is a little spooky imho. But it was good to see a full room. Next time I'll check in here beforehand and try to meet some people f2f. -Boyd



Kline does indeed get to pick, and when my follow up calls and letters go out to the committe, I will point out that when he selected the pro side of that bill 6 out of 6 were people who were paid to be there including 3 from the same antigun organization when it came to the con side he picked 2 that are used to speaking in front of the committe and are expected to be called on to speak (Waldron and Judy) and then 4 average joe on the streets( I don't know Mr Renards background so I'll just go that he is an average person), but at least two of them were people he is very familar with. (Mr Cooper and the other gentlemen who was on the panel with me). My name should be familiar to Kline, I've had plenty of contact with his office every year for the past several.

I'm not dissapointed by the turn out at all, comparing it to last years tremendous turnout isn't being honest to ourselves because if you'll recall last year there were seven gun bills scheduled to be heard:
SB 5131 Insanity finding/firearms
SB 5342 Safe storage of firearms
SB 5343 Gun show loophole
SB 5344 Capitol campus gun ban
+ when it was scheduled there were three bills that didn't even have numbers yet.
the assault weapon ban
the .50 BMG rifle ban
the deployed military CPL renewal.

with four of them being 100% antigun, one troubling, and one meh, and one good.

This year it was one bill, with some folks having just made a trip to Olympia for the SB 6258 hearing on the 17th.


Link Posted: 1/26/2006 6:19:32 PM EDT
Phil, I'm impressed. Thanks for doing all that you do.
Top Top