- Messages
- 2,158
- Reactions
- 5,883
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Washington Alert - HB 1240 & HB 1143 on House Floor
- Thread Starter bentoncity
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hb 1143 hb 1240 house washington
- Messages
- 410
- Reactions
- 648
Yea I got that same email from her.
- Messages
- 2,158
- Reactions
- 5,883
- Thread Starter
- #3
At least someone is listening..
Dan
Dan
- Messages
- 11,984
- Reactions
- 21,178
Wow, 40 Rs vs 58 Ds? Holy chit this one is over. Buy buy buy and donate to those actively overturning this unconstitutional BS in the courts. Sucks.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 19,727
- Reactions
- 55,075
Call them out as Domestic Terrorist, they need to know how we see them and their anti-American unconstitutional gun laws!!!
- Messages
- 11,984
- Reactions
- 21,178
Good description of everything banned here. Pretty much everything banned (including pistols with threaded barrel) except 22s, revolvers, bolt, lever guns. Give to Goa, SAF and others fighting this now.
Cannot buy, sell, trade, or leave to grandkids.
Cannot buy, sell, trade, or leave to grandkids.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 19,727
- Reactions
- 55,075
Passed the house floor vote!!!
"Yeas: 55 Nays: 42 Absent: 0 Excused: 1
Voting Yea: Representatives Alvarado, Bateman, Berg, Bergquist, Berry, Bronoske, Callan, Chapman, Chopp, Cortes, Davis, Doglio, Donaghy, Duerr, Entenman, Farivar, Fey, Fitzgibbon, Fosse, Goodman, Gregerson, Hackney, Kloba, Leavitt, Lekanoff, Macri, Mena, Morgan, Ormsby, Ortiz-Self, Orwall, Paul, Peterson, Pollet, Ramel, Ramos, Reed, Reeves, Riccelli, Ryu, Santos, Senn, Simmons, Slatter, Springer, Stearns, Stonier, Street, Taylor, Thai, Tharinger, Timmons, Walen, Wylie, Jinkins
Voting Nay: Representatives Abbarno, Barkis, Barnard, Caldier, Chambers, Chandler, Cheney, Christian, Connors, Corry, Couture, Dent, Dye, Eslick, Goehner, Graham, Griffey, Harris, Hutchins, Jacobsen, Klicker, Kretz, Low, Maycumber, McClintock, McEntire, Mosbrucker, Orcutt, Robertson, Rude, Rule, Sandlin, Schmick, Schmidt, Shavers, Steele, Stokesbary, Volz, Walsh, Waters, Wilcox, Ybarra
Absent:
Excused: Representative Hansen"
Both my reps are communist's and voted lockstep with the rest!!!
"Yeas: 55 Nays: 42 Absent: 0 Excused: 1
Voting Yea: Representatives Alvarado, Bateman, Berg, Bergquist, Berry, Bronoske, Callan, Chapman, Chopp, Cortes, Davis, Doglio, Donaghy, Duerr, Entenman, Farivar, Fey, Fitzgibbon, Fosse, Goodman, Gregerson, Hackney, Kloba, Leavitt, Lekanoff, Macri, Mena, Morgan, Ormsby, Ortiz-Self, Orwall, Paul, Peterson, Pollet, Ramel, Ramos, Reed, Reeves, Riccelli, Ryu, Santos, Senn, Simmons, Slatter, Springer, Stearns, Stonier, Street, Taylor, Thai, Tharinger, Timmons, Walen, Wylie, Jinkins
Voting Nay: Representatives Abbarno, Barkis, Barnard, Caldier, Chambers, Chandler, Cheney, Christian, Connors, Corry, Couture, Dent, Dye, Eslick, Goehner, Graham, Griffey, Harris, Hutchins, Jacobsen, Klicker, Kretz, Low, Maycumber, McClintock, McEntire, Mosbrucker, Orcutt, Robertson, Rude, Rule, Sandlin, Schmick, Schmidt, Shavers, Steele, Stokesbary, Volz, Walsh, Waters, Wilcox, Ybarra
Absent:
Excused: Representative Hansen"
Both my reps are communist's and voted lockstep with the rest!!!
Will pass the Senate 39 to 20.
Sec. 6. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately.
Looks like they finally read the constitution.
Sec. 6. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately.
Looks like they finally read the constitution.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 2,158
- Reactions
- 5,883
- Thread Starter
- #11
We pretty much knew who the people are/were that are favor of violating our constitutional rights. My thanks for publishing the list of names..
Yea right...
Dan
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 313
- Reactions
- 380
Just received this from Sen. Braun. Interesting to see his comments "not likely to pass" on so many of them.
Firearms Bills 2023: House and Senate
Firearms Bills 2023: House and Senate
| Bill Number | Title | Status | Sponsor | Notes |
| HB 1130/ SB 5078 | Duties of Firearm Industry Members | 1130: In the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary (Not Likely to Pass) 5078: Scheduled for Public Hearing in the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary 3/14 | Rep. Hackney/ Sen. Pederson | Companion Bills |
| HB 1143/ SB 5211 | Requiring Permits for Firearm Purchase | 1143: Passed the House on 3/7 5211: In the Senate Committee on Law & Justice (Not Likely to Pass) | Rep. Berry/ Sen. Trudeau | 1143 and 1144 are nearly identical- only difference is that 1143 includes a permit requirement (Companion Bills) |
| HB 1144/ SB 5232 | Enhancing Requirements for Purchase and Transfer of Firearms | 1144: In the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary (Not Likely to Pass) 5232: In the Senate Committee on Ways and Means (Not Likely to Pass) | Rep. Berry/ Sen. Salomon | 1143 and 1144 are nearly identical- only difference is that 1143 includes a permit requirement (Companion Bills) |
| HB 1161 | Early Release Credits for Violent Offenses with a Firearm | In the House Committee on Community Safety, Justice, & Reentry (Not Likely to Pass) | Rep. Graham | |
| HB 1178/ SB 5446 | Local Government to Regulate Firearms | 1178: In the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary (Not Likely to Pass) 5446: In the Senate Committee on Law & Justice (Not Likely to Pass) | Rep. Hackney/ Sen. Nguyen | Companion Bills |
| HB 1180/ SB 5193 | Prohibiting Assault Weapons | 1180: In the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary (Not Likely to Pass) 5193: In the Senate Committee on Law & Justice (Not Likely to Pass) | Rep. Peterson/ Sen. Kuderer | Companion Bills |
| HB 1195 | Prohibiting Open Carry in Public Parks and Public Hospitals | In the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary (Not Likely to Pass) | Rep. Senn | |
| HB 1562 | Reducing Risks of Lethality and Other Harm | Passed the House on 3/8 | Rep. Thai | |
| SB 5049 | Firearm Theft | In Senate Committee on Law & Justice (Not Likely to Pass) | Sen. Wilson, L | |
| SB 5244 | Second Amendment SAFE-T Act | In Senate Committee on State Government and Elections (Not Likely to Pass) | Sen. Fortunato | Companion Bills |
| HB 1240/ SB 5265 | Prohibiting Assault Weapons | 1240: Passed the House on 3/8 5265: In Senate Committee on Law & Justice (Not Likely to Pass) | Rep. Peterson/ Sen. Kuderer | Companion Bills |
| SB 5444 | Firearm Sensitive Places | In the Senate Committee on Law & Justice (Not Likely to Pass) | Sen. Valdez | |
| SB 5669 | Firearms/ Individual Right | In the Senate Committee on Law & Justice (Not Likely to Pass) | Sen. Fortunato |
- Messages
- 2,158
- Reactions
- 5,883
- Thread Starter
- #13
I'll believe it ^^^ when I see it. The House has already WILLINGLY tromped on the 2A with HB1240. Until this D house, senate, inslee & ferguson are gone, this state is in trouble.
Here's a list of emails from the House members that 'willingly & deliberately' chose to sh!t on every citizen in this state by voting yay for HB1240!
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dan
This could be a deception... to get us to stop trying to fight it... Sorry, I do not trust any of them.
"No ruling power wants an armed populace."
- Messages
- 600
- Reactions
- 704
Interesting. Nevertheless continue the fight… Additionally I would prod Senator Braun further and ask why he thinks these will not pass??? Unless the Republicans have a master plan to somehow stall the senate, I and most others arent seeing it happen, but Im not in Olympia- Im curious
- Messages
- 1,236
- Reactions
- 1,218
There is no way this will not be enjoined within two weeks, if it passes, and it's likely to wind up before the Supreme Court. I think the only reason it won't pass is because some Senators might be able to convince Senators who might otherwise vote for it that this particular bill goes too far and it will wind up creating bad legal precedent for gun regulations.
- Messages
- 600
- Reactions
- 704
You really think it would be enjoined? We are still waiting on injunction for SB5078 mag ban that occurred last year.
- Messages
- 1,236
- Reactions
- 1,218
I don't really know, but this outright bans firearms that people commonly use for self defense in America. I don't read Bruen quite as broadly as some folks— lots of folks think it prohibits most firearms regulation, and I think that's wrong, but the way that courts have been reading it would suggest this is unconstitutional outright. If the plaintiffs are likely to win then a court is likely to enjoin it.
The magazine ban is not as clear, because it's NOT a magazine ban, instead its a restriction on size of magazine. That's actually a slightly different issue IMO. Also it depends on the judge the case is in front of whether he/she grants an injunction.
- Messages
- 951
- Reactions
- 1,289
All firearms regulations/laws should be a federal matter. The litmus test for these bills is does it fall under the purview of the 1968 gun control act (the latest federal gun control.) If it does then it may be voted upon; if not then discarded. Because of the wording of the Second Amendment unless its stricken from the Constitution (contract to between States and the Union) or revised then all laws concerning firearms is a federal matter.
I know I'm being hyperbolic but there are specific instances where the power lies in the federal rather then the state government. Imagine if Gov Inslee inacts wartime preparations then directs the National Guard to takeover Canada/WA border checkpoints basically declaring war with Ca. He doesn't have that authority.
I know I'm being hyperbolic but there are specific instances where the power lies in the federal rather then the state government. Imagine if Gov Inslee inacts wartime preparations then directs the National Guard to takeover Canada/WA border checkpoints basically declaring war with Ca. He doesn't have that authority.
You're right. Bruen doesn't prohibit firearm regulation. The 2A does. Bruen simply states that any proposed firearm regulation must be consistent with the 2A and backed by historical precedent... not "feelngs".
You are free to disagree that the 2A should be a right of the people, but there is no ambiguity in it's interpretation. It's doesn't say, "may sometimes be infringed". Just like the 1A doesn't say "free speech... as long as the majority of people like what you have to say."
A mag ban/capacity ban... quite surely is a ban and not just a round count restriction. It bans the legal sale, aquisition and free ownership of existing standard capacity mags... which are protected under the 2A and which has been repeatedly backed up by the well established common use rule.
You can buy into their arugment that it's not a "ban", but that's just BS. The title of those types of legislation should make that pretty obvious since they all contain the word BAN plainly in the titles.
Anything that has a chilling affect on an inalienable right is an infringment. Pure and simple.
Trying to interpret it differently than how it is written is simply a game play to get what they want regardless of what the law says. Pure and simple.
Similar threads
