1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!
  2. We're giving away over $850 in prizes this month -- enter now for your chance to win!
    Dismiss Notice

Be heard my fellow WA Permit Holders and Shooters - Action Needed on HB 2471 & 1508

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by gcban, Feb 22, 2012.

  1. gcban

    gcban Tukwila, WA Active Member

    Likes Received:
    There are only a couple of days to get a hearing set in the Senate and get these bills passed and on the books. Hearing must be set by Friday 2/24/2012. Let Olympia hear your voice, call or email to info listed in link below. Enhance our CHL permits and protect our shooting ranges. -G

    NRA-ILA | Washington: Swift Action Needed on Three Gun Bills
  2. gcban

    gcban Tukwila, WA Active Member

    Likes Received:
    I wrote to Sen. Kline and below is the response I got from him. Looks like this is not going to move forward in this session. I hate this tit for tat garbage that politics brings but it is what it is. Maybe next session. Be safe -G

    Dear Mr. C

    Because I alone chose not to schedule these two bills for a hearing before the senate Judiciary Committee, I feel I owe the proponents an explanation. I am happy to provide it to you.

    First, my committee hears and votes upon an inordinate number of bills each legislative session. It’s one of the busier policy-making committees, not counting the two fiscal committees, Ways and Means and Transportation. Because the Senate Rules require committee chairpersons to act as the gatekeepers for their committees, in order to “edit” the agenda, it’s my duty to edit out those bills that, for any number of reasons, the chairperson feels shouldn’t go forward. I have taken this role seriously, and as my busy committee-members know, I’ve often let bills be scheduled on which I have my own concerns.

    Second, I made it a point to refuse these two bills in part because it appears that we liberals have been engaged in a one-way conversation on the issue of guns. When faced with reasonable measures on the subject, we’ve almost always voted Yes. Here are just a few examples from past years that have passed the Legislature with the complete and often unanimous support of the urban liberals, and have been signed into law by the Governor:


    · SSB 6052 -- Assisting volunteers in hunter safety programs. Authorized three dollars of the late renewal penalty for concealed weapons permit applications to be used to support volunteer firearm safety instructors. Final Passage: Senate (45-0) House (82-12)


    · SB 5083 -- Recognizing concealed weapon licenses issued by states that recognize Washington's concealed pistol license. Established reciprocal recognition of concealed weapon licenses between Washington and other states with substantially similar procedures and standards for issuing such licenses. Final Passage: Senate (48-0) House (93-2)


    · 2SHB 1052 -- Concerning firearm licenses for persons from other countries. Established process for certain non-citizens (lawful permanent residents and non-immigrants living in Washington and in other states) to possess firearms and obtain a concealed pistol license in Washington. Final Passage: Passed both houses unanimously.

    · SB 5739 -- Revising provisions relating to renewing a concealed pistol license by members of the armed forces. Exempted members of the military serving on active duty outside Washington from the ten dollar late fee for late renewal of a concealed pistol license. Final Passage: Passed both houses unanimously.

    · HB 2226 --The procedures for a retired officer to apply to a local law enforcement agency for issuance of a firearms certificate, including the requirement for the officer to undergo a federal background check, are eliminated. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs ASPC must develop, and make available on its website, a model certificate to be used as a firearms qualification certificate for retired law enforcement officers. A retired law enforcement officer is deemed to satisfy the federal certification requirements if the officer possesses an approved firearms qualification certificate. Final Passage: Passed both houses unanimously.


    · HB 1016: The crime of using a contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of a firearm is amended to exempt the use of a suppressor that is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law. Final Passage: Senate 47-0; House 88-4.

    · HB 1041: Correctional personnel and community corrections officers who have completed government sponsored law enforcement firearms training are exempt from restrictions on carrying a concealed pistol and carrying a pistol in a vehicle. Final Passage: Senate 48-0; House 92-4.

    Although many urban liberal legislators may have found these bills somewhat over-accommodating to the gun-lobby, we voted heavily for them in an effort to be reasonable and bipartisan. Some of us expected that this would evoke similar accommodations from the other side. Some of us simply put great stock in being reasonable and fair—that’s been a characteristic of liberal thinking: a sense of fairness, even to those with whom we disagree.

    Yet, with only one exception, whenever we have asked the gun-lobby for an equivalent accommodation, we have been rebuffed. The sole exception was HB 1498 (2009), which the NRA simply agreed to stay “neutral” on a bill that prohibited gun-possession by violent mentally ill individuals who have been involuntarily hospitalized because they are “dangerous to self or others.” Perhaps this was “reasonable” on their part, or perhaps it was because they recognized that they could not explain to the public how they could oppose it. Either way, it was the only time in my 15 years here that they have ever cooperated in placing any limit on firearms.

    The most glaring example of the pro-gun legislators’ lack of cooperation (in this case, with the encouragement of the NRA) was a bill to exercise the state’s option under the federal statute known as the Brady Act, to close the loophole in the background check requirement for guns sold at gun-shows. It has become routine for police officials to trace guns used in crimes to these gun-shows, where they are purchased on a no-questions-asked basis by people who we all agree have no business owning firearms, because they were either felons, or minors (under 21 for handguns), or adjudicated by the Superior Court to be mentally ill and “dangerous to self or others.” I can think of no more reasonable subject for legislation. Yet many who associate themselves with the gun-lobby claim to be “tough on crime”—and yet strongly opposed this bill that would have prevented criminals from getting guns. As a result, even as total crime numbers actually decrease, guns are used in an increasing percentage of the homicides and assaults that continue to victimize our constituents. And still, the NRA treats this bill as if it were a major invasion of Second Amendment rights—despite the Supreme Court’s upholding of identical laws in other states.

    The lesson that I have learned from the response of the pro-gun legislators over the years is that there is no sense in us liberals being “reasonable,” when there will be no reciprocity, no equivalent sense of fairness on their part. The efficient operation of any legislature in making policy depends on a sense of fairness. As President Obama learned last summer from the behavior of the House Republicans regarding the national debt, there is no sense in being fair to people who will not or cannot be fair in return. Short of this understanding, a legislature still might get its work done if the two sides on any issue are willing to make the “deals” necessary to make policy. But there can’t even be a deal with members who take the most absolute positions, and sign public pledges never to “back down.” Because of this—and only because of this—those of us who have always sought reasonable limits on the use of firearms are finding ourselves a bit tired of all this.

    So, speaking only for myself, I’m tired of being reasonable. When there is a partner willing to be fair, I’ll be fair. When there is a partner willing to make a deal, I’ll deal. When there is neither, I’ll do neither. That’s what you’re seeing.

    Adam Kline

    Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
  3. SteveXKR

    SteveXKR Tacoma,WA Member

    Likes Received:
    Look at him all smug because he killed the bills: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gKs8PV3eY4k#!

    What a bunch of bubblegum that one guy can just decide to basically block these things because he's a self-proclaimed 'liberal' and doesn't like it and apparently had his feelings hurt since no one wants to kiss his ***..

    Politicians make me want to puke.....
  4. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Likes Received:
    At least he is honest about his reasons. But his comments on the silencer bill were totally off base.

    The immediate instinct is that gun owners should work to kick him out in the next election. Given he has been winning by a huge margin in a safe seat, that's somewhat unlikely.

    So what are the alternatives?
  5. svxr8dr

    svxr8dr Vancouver, WA OathKeeper #004404

    Likes Received:
    "So, speaking only for myself, I’m tired of being reasonable. When there is a partner willing to be fair, I’ll be fair. When there is a partner willing to make a deal, I’ll deal. When there is neither, I’ll do neither. That’s what you’re seeing." Adam Kline

    Sounds like this guy just declared the death of diplomacy. What happens again when that fails?
  6. AMProducts

    AMProducts Maple Valley, WA Jerk, Ammo Manufacturer Silver Supporter

    Likes Received:
    I guess I'm not completely understanding his need for "Reasonability" in terms of HB 1498 (2009), as this is a weaker form of existing federal law that forbids acquisition and possession of firearms by those adjudicated "mentally defective" and a "danger to self or others" (4473 question 11.f) which seems to be inclusive of the regulatory requirements proposed by HB 1498. Is Sen. Kline surprised that NRA took a neutral stance given the existing prohibition, or does he just like to use HB1498 as a bludgeon?

    I am a reasonable person, and it seems HB 2226 and HB 1041 were hardly give-away's to the "gun lobby" as they were focused entirely on active and retired police, who are a small subset of Washington gun owners. Further, the rest of the provisions did little more than bring WA state law more in line with federal gun laws.

    Also, I have yet to see this "gun show loophole" he is talking about, I have never been to a gun show in washington where you could just walk in and buy any and every gun I cared to. To purchase a firearm, I would have to be a member, and would have to pass a background check and/or provide a current CPL (as proof of a background check being done). So where is the "gun show loophole"?

    It seems that Sen. Kline is the one being both unreasonable and intractable here, if he understood the myriad laws which are already on the books and instead of creating duplicate regulations to federal law, would find ways of strengthening the provisions of existing laws such as: requiring state agencies to report criminal convictions for possession of drugs, and adjudicative decisions by courts of "danger to self or others" to the FBI NICS database. Taking this action might prevent another Jared Loughner situation and would be a substantially stronger step towards keeping firearms out of the hands of the violently mentally ill than HB1498 ever would have.

    As a reasonable person, I can only conclude that Sen Kline doesn't actually want reasonable legislation regulating firearms, he just wants legislation regulating firearms.
    SteveXKR and (deleted member) like this.
  7. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Likes Received:
    What are the ways he can lose that chairmanship? Obviously he could be voted out, but that isn't going to happen given his district. How is that chairmanship allocated? I'm assuming Democrats would need to lose control in Olympia which is also unlikely.

    Reading his bio, he's actually an interesting guy - born in NY of a family that fled Russia, worked in the South and civil rights most of his life. How do we get him to care more about the civil right of owning a firearm? Wonder if he would meet some constituents?
  8. Ranb

    Ranb Belfair, WA Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Senator Kline has had some very irresponsible statements in past e-mails to me regarding gun control. I wonder if he has evidence to support the claim he made above? I would be interested in seeing the evidence if he has it. Can you write back and ask him? You can also write to the sheriff in his jurisdiction and asd for that information also.

  9. gcban

    gcban Tukwila, WA Active Member

    Likes Received:
    I just sent my response (posted below) to this yahoo! He now has hastily drafted and is sponsoring SB 6628 (link here: Three Wash. Senators), he's trying to hustle this thru quietly and unnoticed under the radar. What a piece of work! I hope this guy gets voted out of office next term. Anti-Firearm and not representing the people, representing himself. -G

    Senator Adam Kline,

    I wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to my email on asking you to schedule a hearing on HB 2471. I must say it baffles me that you or any of our political representatives would purposely kill, and I quote in your own words “a reasonable bill” due to a personal tit for tat across party lines. I’m not naive to the political Left vs. Right machine and the non-stop bull that erodes the confidence of your and other elected officials constituents like me. I get it!

    We trust our lawmakers to do what’s right for all and not to be petty with the Bills presented to our elected representatives and for them to be taken seriously.

    What makes me even more disappointed with you in particular is after killing this “reasonable” bill that would benefit WA State CHL holders you then you hastily (on the heels of the Bremerton School event) compose and sponsor this SB 6628 Bill and expect the law abiding CHL holders that you just threw the finger up at to pay an additional $2 into the state general fund to be used for whatever you like, really? This speaks volumes to me and many others as to your motives and underlying agenda.

    I will make sure I contact as many elected officials in the House and Senate and voice my opposition to your Bill. Not because of your actions (or should I say inaction) on HB 2471, because your Bill (SB 6628) “Is Not Reasonable”. It punishes all WA citizens based on an irresponsible few and it financially penalizes law abiding WA CHL holders for no reason other than financial gain of the State General Fund. I am truly just in disbelief that you thought this thing up and sponsor it. I really hope it does not pass.