Second Amendment Rights Being Debated In Washington State!

There are five bill proposals being "discussed" in the Washington State Judiciary Committee on January 25, 2018!

Here's the link to the information. Make sure you contact your representative, senator and any other politico or wannabe politico to let them know we do not want nor will we tolerate them tampering with our second amendment rights.

In a nutshell, from the article...

House Bill 1387, sponsored by Representative Laurie Jinkins (D-27), would impose a registration-licensing system on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity ammunition magazines that bill proponents label as “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” (LCM). (Go to the link and read more)!

House Bill 2422, sponsored by Representative Strom Peterson (D-21), is yet another bill targeting so-called “Large Capacity Magazines” and would prohibit the possession of ammunition magazines holding ten or more rounds, with limited exceptions. And yet another large cap law they're trying to push through. (Go to the link and read more)!

House Bill 2666, sponsored by Representative Nicole Macri (D-43) would abolish Washington’s decades old state firearm preemption statute.  The state preemption statute, which passed in 1983, helps keep firearm and ammunition laws consistent throughout Washington... (Go to the link and read more)!

House Bill 2293, sponsored by Representative Ruth Kagi (D-32) prohibits law-abiding individuals from being able to carry a firearm for self-defense at child day care centers and early learning facilities, with limited exceptions. (Go to the link and read more)!

House Bill 2519, sponsored by Representative John Lovick (D-44), which would require law enforcement agencies, prior to returning a surrendered or impounded concealed pistol license, to verify licensee’s eligibility to possess firearms and a CPL license. (Go to the link and read more)!

A note on HB2519 that's sponsored by Representative John Lovick (D-44). The description suggests that law enforcement agencies be require, "prior to returning a surrendered or impounded concealed pistol license, to verify licensee’s eligibility to possess firearms AND a CPL license."  I emphasized AND in my post to ensure the reader knows that the return of the firearm to the rightful owner would only be legal if the owner was "eligible" (whatever the hell that means) to possess the firearms they confiscated from him/her AND that the established owner was "eligible" to possess a Concealed Pistol License (CPL) whether we wanted a CPL or not. There is no requirement in the second amendment for any of us to possess a concealed pistol license (CPL) of which the eligibility of such license is determined by the state, not by our constitution. Given this particular proposal, the "eligibility" to be assigned by the local "law enforcement" dilutes our constitutional rights even more. Our layered government interprets and makes decisions that are influenced and based on their particular "level" of enforcement/interpretation, not necessarily on our constitutionally assigned rights as United States Citizens.

There is no requirement in the United States Constitution for me to be "eligible" to possess a Concealed Pistol License! I personally believe I have a right to constitutional carry a concealed firearm without purchasing a concealed carry permit sold to me by the state of Washington via the local gendarmes.

I have carried a firearm concealed for decades. Enforce the laws on the books, don't create new ones, modify old ones to regulate our rights towards what the government "believes" is right for the government. There's more than enough laws on the books that can, if interpreted properly be enforced without the creation of new and more restraining laws and rules.

But, don't get me going on state "rules".

#IMHO