Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

A pro-gun rights 'road map' for WA state

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Dave Workman, May 29, 2012.

  1. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,387
    http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-veteran-activist-offers-pro-gun-road-map-for-wa

    Here's the document I write about in the column:

    Note:

    The following draft was authored by veteran gun rights activist and lobbyist Joe Waldron, currently the legislative director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
    Waldron continues to lobby on behalf of gun owners in Olympia on behalf of the Gun Owners’ Action League, and during the legislative session, he publishes the weekly GOAL Alert that reaches thousands of Washington State gun owners.
    This is not an official agenda, he explained, but more in the nature of “food for thought” as I write in my Examiner column.
    Give it a read and discuss its points in the spirit in which they are presented.




    A "PROGRESSIVE" PRO-GUN
    ROAD MAP



    The Washington state constitution contains one of the strongest right-to-keep-and-bear-arms provisions of any state. Article 1, Section 24 states, 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. (The "armed body of men" clause was intended to prevent corporations from employing armed strikebreakers.)
    In fact, in the mid-1980s the Washington State Supreme Court noted that the constitutional right to bear arms was stronger in our state constitution than that recognized by the U.S. Constitution.
    For the past forty years the individual right to keep and bear arms -- rarely challenged before then -- has been subjected to an unrelenting series of attacks at the federal and state levels by a small minority who have the ultimate goal of banning possession of all or some classes of firearms.
    In District of Columbia v Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment affirms the right of the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN, not subject to any militia service, to keep and bear arms. In McDonald v City of Chicago (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court extended that affirmation of the individual right under the Second Amendment to ALL citizens nationwide.
    Befitting its history as a "progressive" state, the following items are proposed as a truly liberal (in the classical sense) and progressive agenda to reaffirm and expand the rights of Washington's responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

    1. SHOOTING RANGE PROTECTION
    2. VOLUNTEER INSTRUCTOR CIVIL LIABILITY PROTECTION
    3. DEFENSIVE FIREARM USE CIVIL LIABILITY PROTECTION
    4. UNILATERAL RECOGNITION OF CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSES
    5. FIREARMS PREEMPTION ENFORCEMENT
    6. BRANDISHING STATUTE CLARIFICATION
    7. ASSISTED-OPENING KNIVES
    8. USE OF SUPPRESSORS IN HUNTING
    9. DENYING FIREARM RIGHTS DURING AN EMERGENCY
    10. FIREARMS REGISTERED UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT of 1934


    1. SHOOTING RANGE PROTECTION
    Loss of safe shooting ranges, typically due to growth and encroachment, is a major concern of gun owners, and should be a concern to the public at large. Shooting ranges not only offer a safe place to shoot, but most also offer firearm safety classes, at low or no cost to the individual. 44 states have passed legislation protecting shooting ranges from nuisance lawsuits and other measures intended to close the range or limit their activities ("Well, yes, I heard the shooting when I looked at the home we were buying, but the realtor assured me the range was closing.")
    The Washington legislature has passed range protection legislation TWICE in previous sessions, only to have it vetoed by the sitting governor (Lowry and Locke) after heavy lobbying by range opponents. A range protection bill (HB 1508) passed the House of Representatives this year on a 93-5 vote, only to be arbitrarily killed in Senate Judiciary by the committee chair.


    2. VOLUNTEER INSTRUCTOR CIVIL LIABILITY PROTECTION
    Several not-for-profit organizations offer free or low-cost safety classes on a wide variety of topics, with instruction provided by volunteer, unpaid instructors, among them Red Cross first aid classes and firearm safety classes. These classes provide a clear benefit to the community at large, typically at no cost to the community. A significant out-of-pocket cost for these instructors is insurance coverage to protect from nuisance lawsuits. This cost, and the threat of lawsuits, discourages many knowledgeable and qualified individuals from offering their service.

    3. DEFENSIVE FIREARM USE CIVIL LIABILITY PROTECTION
    Washington state law is very clear in defining the circumstances when lethal force may be used in self defense. In fact, Washington goes farther than other states in providing reimbursement for costs of defense and other losses when an individual pleads not guilty by reason of self defense and who prevails with that defense at trial (RCW 9A.16.110). Washington also acknowledges that "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.] Unfortunately, while a prosecutor may determine that the use of force was fully justifiable, or a jury finds the same, the "victim" (actually the perpetrator) can still sue the citizen in civil court for wrongful death or injury. If the citizen was acting within the law, he or she should not be subjected to such unjust lawsuit.

    4. UNILATERAL RECOGNITION OF CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSES
    Forty-nine states currently have some provision for licensed carry of a concealed firearm. Forty of those states recognize some or all of the licenses issued by other states. In 2004, Washington passed a fairly restrictive reciprocity law that -- at this time -- recognizes licenses issued by 12 other states. In comparison, eleven states recognize ALL licenses, and most other states with reciprocity laws recognize 25-35 other states' licenses. The issue is not whether another states' licensing provisions are a mirror image of Washington's, but rather did the citizen comply with the law in acquiring a license. The person to fear is not the person with a pistol in one pocket and a license in the other, but the person with a pistol in one pocket and NO license.

    5. FIREARMS PREEMPTION ENFORCEMENT
    Washington was one of the first states to pass firearms preemption (RCW 9.41.290) in 1983, limiting the regulation of firearms to the state legislature. By doing so, it eliminated a patchwork quilt of county and city ordinances that placed law-abiding gun owners at legal jeopardy as they traveled across the state. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions openly and knowingly ignore preemption, because there are no penalties prescribed, continuing to impose local ordinances. It is time that we put teeth into firearms preemption and hold those political subdivisions -- and the elected officials who pass these illegal ordinances -- accountable for their actions.

    6. BRANDISHING STATUTE CLARIFICATION
    Along with 43 other states, Washington does not prohibit the open carry of a firearm, provided the person in possession can lawfully possess such firearm. RCW 9.41.270 prohibits the display of a firearm "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." The language "manifests an intent to intimidate" is fairly clear, and requires overt action on the part of the individual to show intent. The language "warrants alarm for the safety of others" is ambiguous and requires no inappropriate action or intent by the individual. In effect, "warrants alarm for the safety of others" is in the eye of the beholder (e.g. the complaining citizen or the responding police officer).
    This language has been been used by some police officers to arrest an individual who is doing nothing other than lawfully carrying a firearm in a manner visible to others. Individuals have been charged, and convicted, of brandishing when no actual brandishing (threatening) has occurred. This section needs to be amended to require clearly inappropriate or threatening behavior on the part of the individual.

    7. ASSISTED-OPENING KNIVES
    As a gang activity control measure, Washington and many other states passed "switchblade" laws decades ago, banning the possession or carry of knives whose blades opened by spring pressure after the push of a button. Since that time, a whole new genre of knives have been developed that fall under the "switchblade" definition, but that have wide legitimate application. A knife can be a valuable tool, in some cases a life-saving tool. And under extreme circumstances, the individual may not have both hands available to open a conventional knife. Assisted-opening knives are widely used by police officers, emergency technicians and military members. Once again, this is a ban based not on anti-social behavior, but the simple existence of such devices.

    8. USE OF SUPPRESSORS IN HUNTING
    Exposure to loud and sharp noise can and does lead to significant hearing loss. This fact has long been recognized by the shooting community, and most ranges require hearing protection while using their facilities. But hunters in the field are operating under different requirements, including the requirement to hear game -- and other hunters -- moving in covered terrain. Firearm suppressors (silencers) have always been legal to own in Washington (and most other states), subject to passing a federal background check and payment of a $200 federal transfer tax. But up until last year, Washington law prohibited their USE. In its wisdom, in 2011 the legislature repealed the restriction on the use of lawfully-possessed suppressors. No prohibition should be placed on the use of suppressors in the field while lawfully engaging in hunting or related activities.

    9. DENYING FIREARM RIGHTS DURING AN EMERGENCY
    RCW 38.52 empowers the governor and certain local officials to suspend the rights guaranteed under Article 1, Section 24 of the constitution, specifically the right to lawfully possess firearms and ammunition outside the home during a declared state of emergency. This fails to recognize that the potential threat of disorder may be significantly greater during an emergency, limited law enforcement assets will be critically overcommitted, and protection of life and property will fall more heavily on the individual citizen. Citizens may be required to draw food, water and other supplies from a centralized distribution point, and are at great risk of having these life-sustaining supplies stolen while returning home.

    10. FIREARMS REGISTERED UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT of 1934
    In 1934, Congress passed the first federal gun control bill, the National Firearms Act of 1934. NFA 1934 imposed severe controls on fully automatic weapons, on rifles and shotguns with short barrels (rifles under 16", shotguns under 18"), on suppressors ("silencers"), and on certain other classes of firearms or weapons classified as "destructive devices." Recognizing the unconstitutionality of passing an outright ban on any of these, Congress imposed a $200 federal "transfer tax" on such firearms and devices, effectively ensuring such weapons would stay out of the hands of "average" citizens. In addition to paying the $200 tax, a citizen wishing to purchase such a firearm or device must undergo a comprehensive, fingerprint-based background checck by the federal BATFE. At this time, a quarter million automatic weapons are lawfully possessed by U.S. citizens.
    Washington passed an outright ban on the possession of automatic weapons (with a couple of vary narrow exceptions) decades ago. It was legal to possess short-barreled rifles and shotguns in Washington until 1994, when the state legislature slammed that door shut. (Existing owners were grandfathered, as were the small number of individuals owning automatic weapons; there is no record that any of these federally-registered firearms have ever been used in Washington in a crime). Most states allow these firearms, and there does not appear to be a problem with their misuse. It's time to restore FULL firearm rights to Washington's law-abiding gun owners.
     
  2. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    Change item 4 to: "Constitutional concealed carry"

    Why would we want to reinforce the idea that a permit is required for concealed carry?
     
    Botte Hork and (deleted member) like this.
  3. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    My pet pieves are RCW 9.41.050(2)(a) and RCW 9.41.270(1)..He addressed .270(1)..he did not mention .050(2)(a)

    Actually, anything passed in 1994 (Lowrey and company) that is still in 9.41...or anywhere else in state law, should be repealed. A lot of that junk is already gone, we need to get rid of the rest.

    There are other parts of RCW 9.41 that I think should just be repealed,,, but that will be for later.