Yeah well, I only got 5 hours of sleep last night because this pissed me off to the point where I kept writing and sending emails.  

My wife was annoyed so I blamed you guys.

My wife keeps teasing me about all the emails I keep writing as well.

These are called “shit tests”.  Your wives are watching to see if you change course.

Maintain speed and heading.

Haven't seen this yet.  video update on amendment to be 10 rounds.
Guns & Gadgets link

Latest SB language.

Vert de Ferk???
27 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
to read as follows:28
29 Distributing, selling, offering for sale, or facilitating the
30 sale, distribution, or transfer of a large capacity magazine online
31 is an unfair or deceptive act or practice or unfair method of
32 competition in the conduct of trade or commerce for purposes of the
33 consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW.

and while not part of the RCW, this nugget related to the above:

(3) Makes violations of this act a violation of the Consumer
Protection Act.

I don't see any language in the new version of this SB that mentions anything about possession or grandfathering.  Just sale, import, distribution, etc.  Any of which is by statute a violation of the Consumer Protection Act????

Strange bullshit.

The companion House Bill is also 10 rounds, but still contains the possession limitations and grandfathering, but no "selfie test" for proof of prior possession.  It says you have to prove you owned it before, but give no info on HOW to do so:

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


I think this is meat of the two steaming piles.

Rob

Here's my "short version" for the HB comment page:

This Bill would ban many standard capacity magazines commonly used by law-abiding citizens, such as for handguns popular for self-defense.  Magazine size limits have proven to be ineffective in reducing crime or limiting bloodshed (contrary to the sales pitch included in the Bill).  The arbitrary selection of a size limit for magazine is completely absurd.  Defenders MUST be allowed to handle ANY situation, not just an "average" one.  Police often require 10 or more shots FROM EACH OFFICER before a confrontation is ended.  And if there are multiple assailants, even more ammunition may be required.  A "grandfather" clause that does not allow for ALL LAWFUL USE of said magazine is a fully pointless restriction only on the law-abiding.  It clearly shows that the purpose is NOT the prevention of crime, but rather restrictions on LAWFUL BEHAVIOR.  Note also that other States with magazine restrictions are currently LOSING in court due the COMMON USE of such in the rest of the country.


For the SB, I removed the bits about possession and grandfathering, but added info about "equal protection under the law" due to the inability for younger folks to get them after enactment:

This Bill would ban the distribution of many standard capacity magazines commonly used by law-abiding citizens, such as for handguns popular for self-defense.  Magazine size limits have proven to be ineffective in reducing crime or limiting bloodshed (contrary to the sales pitch included in the Bill).  The arbitrary selection of a size limit for magazine is completely absurd.  Defenders MUST be allowed to handle ANY situation, not just an "average" one.  Police often require 10 or more shots FROM EACH OFFICER before a confrontation is ended.  And if there are multiple assailants, even more ammunition may be required.  This law would also fail "equal protection under the law" in that only those fortunate enough to already have them would be able to own them, creating an "elite class" of "high capacity magazine owners".  Oh...and the criminals who already DO NOT OBEY LAWS.  Thank you.

I submitted that one for Mrs. Teddydog since I had already commented on it and we agree on this subject.

Rob

What's the logic behind a 10 round magazine limit?  It takes a second to change mags, do they think someone will rush the shooter in between mags?!

Yes, they actually believe a mass shooter will be inhibited by 10rd magazines, but the primary ideal they want to accomplish is control over us.

It is a combination of stupidity and control.

I agree, if this fails, expect an initiative heavily bank rolled by the usual suspects.

Elephant in the room, millions of magazines readily available, criminals do not obey laws, welp, I can't commit a crime because there is a law against it

Even if you aren't communicating with legislators, they are:

I used Teddydog's letter and tweaked it a little for the grandfather clause being removed and to make a slightly different in certain areas.

I am writing you today to request that you OPPOSE SB 5078.
As written, SB 5078 would ban many standard capacity magazines commonly used by law-abiding citizens, such as those in handguns popular for self-defense, target shooting and organized recreational events. Magazine size limits have proven to be ineffective in reducing crime or limiting bloodshed in all states that have enacted them (contrary to the sales pitch included in this Bill). Note that other States with magazine restrictions are currently losing in court challenges due to the COMMON USE of standard capacity magazines in the rest of the country.

In fact, the arbitrary selection of a "magically safe" size limit for a magazine is completely nonsensical and absurd on its face.  What makes 10 rounds the magic number if not to intentionally erode our rights and chase a deeply divisive political agenda?

I suggest we focus on enforcing the hundreds of gun laws already on the books rather than dream up new ways to marginalize the law-abiding voters and taxpayers who keep Washington State afloat.  You need only look to the unprecedented flight of businesses and individuals (and REVENUE) out of the State of California for a taste of what will happen here if our voices are not heard on these issues.  

Finally, a reminder that any such restriction is a violation of the Washington Constitution:

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."

I look forward to your reply on this matter and respectfully ask that you apply true "common sense" by focusing your time and attention on the real, burning issues impacting our state such as housing the homeless and rebuilding our critical infrastructure.

got some responses:

Thank you for your message and your steadfast advocacy.  I am 100% opposed to any bill which seeks to infringe on or violate your 2nd Amendment Rights.
All these bills will do is create a false sense of security for those who do not understand firearms.  As you and I know, it is not the law abiding gun owners that are using firearms in illegal and evil capacities.  It is the criminals, who we also know don't follow the law.  It is unconscionable that the majority Democrats continue to push these dangerous policies that will keep the criminals well-armed while limiting the ability of the law-abiding gun owner to fully defend themselves.  And at a time when crime Washington state is at a 25 year high!

Please be assured that I will do all that I can to stop these terrible bills.

Yours in service,

LYNDASIGNATURE
Senator Lynda Wilson
17th Legislative District

Olympia Office - 205 Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40417 - Olympia, WA 98504
* [email protected]  ( 360.786.7632

A load of possible amendments added today making 5078 more palatable than previous, though I suspect the real idea is to tie things up in debate till time is up.  I want it to just go away entirely, not be less bad. ( If they could alter it to eliminate all it's current characteristics and make it a pro gun bill I'd settle for that )

 - Nw -

You are correct that hanging bunches of amendments is a tactic.  You may or may not know that Senator Phil Fortunato - who is the one who added most of the amendments to 5078 - is a competitive shooter and very pro-gun.  Basically, each amendment must be given time for floor debate.  It's possible that 5078 can get "stalled out" so-to-speak this session but we should KEEP THAT PRESSURE UP until the gavel hits the wood (Sine Die or the official end of session).

I believe that's how they killed this bill in the house last year

What did they add? Already got rid of prohibition. They up the round count?

Here are the 9 amendments from Sen Fortunato, and they are listed at the bottom of the page: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5078&Year=2021&Initiative=false

SSB 5078 - S AMD TO S AMD (S-3477.5/22) 1001
   By Senator Fortunato
   On page 7, line 17, after "than" strike "10" and insert "30"
   On page 7, line 23, after "than" strike "10" and insert "30"
EFFECT: Changes the capacity limit from more than 10 rounds to more than 30 rounds.

SSB 5078 - S AMD TO S AMD (S-3477.5/22) 1003
   By Senator Fortunato
On page 7, beginning on line 17, after "ammunition," strike all material through "person," on line 20
EFFECT: Strikes language regarding conversion kits, parts, and combination of parts from the definition of "large capacity magazine."

SSB 5078 - S AMD TO S AMD (S-3477.5/22) 1002
   By Senator Fortunato
   On page 7, line 17, after "than" strike "10" and insert "21"
   On page 7, line 23, after "than" strike "10" and insert "21"
EFFECT: Changes the capacity limit from more than 10 rounds to more than 21 rounds.

SSB 5078 - S AMD TO S AMD (S-3477.5/22) 1004
       By Senator Fortunato
1 On page 7, line 34, after "state." insert ""Distribute" does not
2 include transfers of large capacity magazines between individuals
3 when one of the individuals transferring the large capacity magazine
4 holds a valid concealed pistol license under chapter 9.41 RCW."
EFFECT: Clarifies the definition of "distribute" to exclude transfers where one individual holds a valid concealed pistol license (CPL).

SSB 5078 - S AMD TO S AMD (S-3477.5/22) 1005
       By Senator Fortunato
1 On page 7, line 34, after "state." insert ""Distribute" does not
2 include transfers of large capacity magazines between individuals
3 when one of the individuals transferring the large capacity magazine
4 is a certified weapons training instructor or range safety officer."
EFFECT: Clarifies the definition of "distribute" to exclude transfers where one individual is a certified weapons training instructor or range safety officer.

5078-S AMS FORT S4443.1
SSB 5078 - S AMD TO S AMD (S-3477.5/22) 1006
       By Senator Fortunato
1 On page 7, line 34, after "state." insert ""Distribute" does not
2 include transfers of large capacity magazines between individuals
3 when one of the individuals transferring the large capacity magazine
4 is employed as a private security guard or armed private
5 investigator."
EFFECT: Clarifies the definition of "distribute" to exclude transfers where one individual is employed as a private security guard or armed private investigator

SSB 5078 - S AMD TO S AMD (S-3477.5/22) 1007
       By Senator Fortunato
1 On page 7, line 34, after "state." insert ""Distribute" does not
2 include transfers of large capacity magazines between individuals
3 when one of the individuals transferring the large capacity magazine
4 is acting as the registered agent for a corporation that owns and
5 operates a shooting range or facility."
EFFECT: Clarifies the definition of "distribute" to exclude transfers where one individual is acting as the registered agent for a corporation that owns and operates a shooting range or facility.

5078-S AMS FORT S4445.1
SSB 5078 - S AMD TO S AMD (S-3477.5/22) 1008
       By Senator Fortunato
1 On page 7, line 34, after "state." insert ""Distribute" does not
2 include transfers of large capacity magazines between individuals
3 when one of the individuals transferring the large capacity magazine
4 operates a firearms training instructor business in coordination with
5 a shooting range or facility."
EFFECT: Clarifies the definition of "distribute" to exclude transfers where one individual operates a firearms training instructor business in coordination with a shooting range or facility.

SSB 5078 - S AMD TO S AMD (S-3477.5/22) 1009
   By Senator Fortunato
   On page 8, line 1, after "may" insert "intentionally"
   On page 8, line 25, after "section" insert "with criminal intent"
   On page 8, line 30, after "online" insert "with criminal intent"
EFFECT: Adds intent element to section 3 concerning the new crime of unlawful manufacture, import, distribution, sale, or offer for sale; adds intent element to section 4 concerning the Consumer Protection Act.

Please send him a "thank you" email!

[email protected]

On it!

Will do right now

I got a couple nice responses from Jim Honeyford too, actual responses not canned form letter stuff.

He is on our side.

ETA

Got a nice response from Lynda Wilson too.

I received a similar response from Senator Wilson yesterday. I'm going to send her and Senator Fortunato a thank you message today.

I just heard back from Phil Fortunato's office, the email sounds grim, it looks like this will past today.


This would be the time to email and call ASAP.

I’m curious what the actual context of that communication was.  If it’s “SB 5078 is at the top of the calendar!”  Then it’s been like that for weeks.

@FishKepr

Salutation,

Thank you for your kind words. Not only is Senator Phil a great American, he’s also a terrific boss.

Looks like the Dems may have the votes to pass the magazine limit bill, sometime today.

There is no filibuster rule at the state level, unlike the US Senate…so even if every Republican votes against it today, and they will, we cannot stop final passage. My best guess is that Senate Dems will even ‘allow’ a couple of vulnerable Dems vote against it, to protect their caucus in “swing districts.”


Democrats must know the optics are terrible…that they would be restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens while WA state slides into complete anarchy, especially West of the Mountains…. An avalanche of theft and robbery, and homelessness, and assault, and murder…..not to mention paroling tens of thousands of prisoners convicted of violent crimes by Governor Inslee and the WA Dem legislators. Even the biased local media is having a hard time ignoring the chaos caused by Democrat extreme ideology.


House bill is 14 rounds, Senate bill is 16 rounds…my bet is they settle on 15 (but that’s only a guess) in the final reconciliation bill.  They probably will figure that 15 rounds (mag capacity for a vast number of existing pistols) “hurts” the fewest commercial interests (local gun storefronts,  they don’t want to completely alienate them because they want to work with them in the future…to restrict us even more). Also, there are a lot of new gun owners in liberal districts…if those folks purchased a Glock19, during the Pandemic, they might think this limit “wouldn’t affect most of them.”


I do think there is still a chance to kill this in the House, but I’m not optimistic. Obviously, House members are up every other fall, so in swing districts (whatever few are left) are going to feel the wraith of pro-gun electoral bloc faster.


Inslee will sign it into law right away…effective 90 days from his signature.


So, at that point, if it passes…..it’s up to every gun owner in the state to punish Dems who voted for the ban, this Fall, at the ballot box.


Watch TVW today for floor action….could come up at any time. Record and share any speeches you feel relevant on social media, etc.


Keep fighting, reach out anytime.

Is it going to pass WITH prohibition or just sales??

This. Sucks overall but prohibition is the stick in the eye.

Watching TVW right now to see if 5078 comes up, AND trying to get info outside that but no ones transmitting. I guess everyones waiting/watching too.

At this point with our ignored communications about the SB, we can HOPE that the number of amendments will make this a tough pass in the Senate.

But it also looks like the House bill is still in Committee and has language very far from that in the Senate Bill.  Isn't that also a hopeful sign?

Does this info from Phil Fortunato's office indicate that there have been changes to both the SB and HB that are not yet reflected on the Legislature info pages for them?


Rob

My underatanding use to be that a SB and a HB had to be in sync and passed togather.

Now Ive been told a primary bill doesnt require a companion bill.

Apparently this SB can go through without the HB

What's going on?  It's disappeared from the floor calendar, though other passed bills are still shown, and it's page shows no status change.  Hhh?

 EDIT - Now it's back on the calendar.  Heartattackguy.jpg

 - Nw -

Sent more emails.

As I too recently found out:  the two bills do not have to be in perfect alignment or parity.

However:  when the Senate version crosses over to the House chamber, if the folks in the House don’t concur with the Senate version, the House will amend the bill and send it back to the Senate Chamber for their approval.  That is one benefit of the bicameral legislative process:  BOTH chambers have to agree on the language of the bill before it is presented to the governor for signature (the “executive”).

So it is possible that if we make enough noise that 5078 can get held up and the clock runs out.

Sent another round of emails to all of the Senators today.

Let's keep up the fight!

I’m normally the most calm, rarely angry person but these anti American bills get my blood pressure up. Every January and February. I hope the SCOTUS will rule these proposals as unconstitutional.

WA Senate is debating into the night and the mag ban is on their agenda for tonight:https://app.leg.wa.gov/far/Senate/OrderOfConsideration/Report?id=3589

You can watch them here (if you have a strong stomach):

https://tvw.org/video/senate-floor-debate-february-9-2022021163/?eventID=2022021163

If you haven't already literally RIGHT NOW comment:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?billNumber=5078&year=2022&initiative=False

That’s all we can do Brother!

Someone was up talking about LE reform - think that one was about rolling back the restrictions to policing.

Need to get up early and watching mag debate -whenever it comes up - will probably make me toss and turn all night.

My ulcer is just loving this:(

Just saw Manka Dingrham (whatever her name is) pushing back on the amendment to strike “large” and replace with “regular” capacity. She insisted that they aren’t “regular”. Fucking idiot has no business talking about this much less sponsoring a bill on a topic that’s out of their depth.

That is hard to watch.  I had to stop watching after the concealed carry exemption amandment.

Amendment 1006 wasn’t adopted - what was again? Only caught the tail end, my fear is it had to do with allowing transfers to family after death.

Ok. So what the fuck is going on?

We’re fucked.

Pretty much

1006 was exemption for private security/investigator.

I just got up and started watching. Calling in late for work to watch this.

What amendments have been adopted/rejected so far??

I just bought some Sp5 magazines because of this shit

https://app.leg.wa.gov/far/Senate/OrderOfConsideration/Report?id=3589
Add the ‘Action’ column.