Our Second Amendment rights are being trampled by our state legislators, if we let them get away with these latest laws that they're proposing. I once thought these were all "dead" but somehow they've been "resurrected". I was told most didn't pass committee. Evidently there's been some exception made for them to be reconsidered or not...
My whole problem with the first bill that made it past "muster" so far is not so much about the "inclusion of a charge on a list" as it is the definitions used in the particular charge that they're proposing to be included on the list of charges prohibiting firearms ownership. I served as a law enforcement officer in the state of Washington for decades and I know full well how the definition of "domestic violence" can be so fluidly interpreted and subsequently applied by the court, depending upon jurisdiction and "familiarity" with the "suspect" and/or the "victim".
Senate Bill 6298-2017-18 Adds Domestic Violence to the long list of charges that would prohibit firearms ownership. First, in this state "domestic violence" is very loosely interpreted by the respctive county judges even though there's somewhat fluid legal definitions of the "violation". And the reading and inclusion of the word "harassment" into the state's legal definition of "domestic violence" is troublesome, at best. This first bill up really bothers me because our rights are decided based upon independent judges' own personal interpretations of the word "harassment" and its application to the offense of "domestic violence". Even though there's a legal definition provided we all know those legal definitions are subject to "interpretation" and are far too often determined to be poorly interpreted by the presiding judge.
Sooo- we need to get in contact with your local state senators and representatives and put an end to this bill. It's poorly written and I'm very nervous about the way it tends to partially hinge on the word... "harassment" and all variations of it.
Senate Bill 5992-2017-18 Concerning Trigger Modification Devices prohibits the modification of triggers in firearms, to include bump stocks. In my opinion it's poorly written and shouldn't be considered at this time, if at all. Personally, I have no need nor do I have any desire to modify any of my firearms triggers but then again I don't compete in shooting events, etc. I'm not going to waste my time posting anything more relating to or following this particular bill.
House Bill 2519 allows active duty military members and honorably discharged veterans that are at least 18 years of age to possess pistols and obtain a concealed weapons license in contrast to the current law that prohibits anyone between the ages of 18 and 21 to carry a concealed weapon outside of their residence. It's a good change in the law in my humble opinion.
Three other bills previously mentioned on this blog were defeated.
They included Substitute House Bill 1122 which was a horrible idea that required all firearms be kept in a safe or otherwise locked up and rendered inaccessible when not in use, House Bill 1483 which allowed for firearms confiscated by or forfeited to the Washington State Patrol to be destroyed. Currently they may be sold by law enforcement and finally, Senate Bill 5441 that would have required a "waiting period" for the return to the owner, any firearms forfeited or otherwise confiscated by the state under the "Involuntary Treatement Act".
We're definitely not done here in Washington State but the defeat of these three bills helped. However Senate Bill 6298 and Senate Bill 5992 should be defeated as written. Both are poorly written and though I understand the intent of each they're not necessary. We have other laws in the Revised Codes of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Codes (WAC) that address most, if not all of the concerns so poorly illustrated in the two bill proposals.
Let's enforce the laws we already have on the books! There's no need for the creation of new ones.
Fellow Washington State Citizens determine your legislative district if you don't already know it and contact your respective legislators and let them know your concerns. After all, they work for us therefore they should be representing us, as a majority. Here's their emails...
A shout out to the National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action for the timely and constant update on these bill proposals affecting our national and my Washington State's constitutional rights!
IMHO
#
Showing posts with label House Bill 2519. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House Bill 2519. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Friday, January 19, 2018
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
