Washington Prefiled Bills

[whitney]

Prefiled Bills

app.leg.wa.gov

A few bills worth looking over;
HB 2196 Standards for issuing an ERPO
HB 2202 LEO exemption for firearm safety training requirement for semiauto rifle purchase or transfer.
SB 6402 Prohibiting the use of title-only bills.
SB 6044 Responsibilities of the three branches of gov for admin rules procedure.

Each one of these probably could hold its own thread.

~Whitney

Read More

 

[awshoot]

HB 2196 is a step in the right direction:

1. It changes the burden of proof from a preponderance of the evidence (barely better than a coin toss) to "clear and convincing" evidence -- not as strong as "beyond a reasonable doubt" but still better.
2. Instead of letting the state prove that the person is a "significant danger to self or others in the near future" -- it requires "an imminent, particularized, and substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury to self or others".

The ERPO law still turns due process on its head and is thus fundamentally flawed, but at least it would be slightly less fundamentally flawed.

As for HB2202 -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so if we can't have it, the gander shouldn't get it either. Didn't look it up or read it, but I can tell from the title I don't like it.

 

[Slobray]

As for HB2202 -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so if we can't have it, the gander shouldn't get it either. Didn't look it up or read it, but I can tell from the title I don't like it.

It was written by Klippert, a deputy sheriff with the Benton County Sheriff's Office, who's very pro-gun. I believe that last year he tried to get the same exemption, but with the military included in with the LEO's.



Ray

 

[GWS]

So again
Special exemptions for LEO
That's how they always bought off LEO's when passing anti-gun crap back in the PRK.

 

[Diamondback]

Tell Klippert to engrave his "Special People" language in his duty carbine and shove it up his turdlocker sideways and sans lube.

 

[No_Regerts]

The resentment some of you show toward the police keeps you from understanding. It sucks that you have to take a stupid class every five years. I get that. But we already have to spend 40 hours a year covering the same subject matter, it just wasn't in a single-package like the 1639 specific classes. Its not an "exemption" to 1639 requirements. I'd trade the 200 hours of classes over 5 years for everyone else's 30 minutes, once every 5 years.

So maybe an initiative should be passed for the goose to step up the training, since the gander already does it? Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[Red98422]

The resentment some of you show toward the police keeps you from understanding. It sucks that you have to take a stupid class every five years. I get that. But we already have to spend 40 hours a year covering the same subject matter, it just wasn't in a single-package like the 1639 specific classes. Its not an "exemption" to 1639 requirements. I'd trade the 200 hours of classes over 5 years for everyone else's 30 minutes, once every 5 years.

So maybe an initiative should be passed for the goose to step up the training, since the gander already does it? Yeah, I didn't think so

not the same thing. It's expected for you to train constantly on a tool that can help complete or accomplish your job. Just like I have to re-certify with cranes every year, where Joe Schmo who doesn't do it professionally doesn't.

At the end of the day LEO shouldn't have any exemptions from gun laws. Not to say I don't support and appreciate LEO, I just feel a badge doesn't earn any extra privileges outside the line of duty that us "common folk" shouldn't also have access to.

 

[No_Regerts]

not the same thing. It's expected for you to train constantly on a tool that can help complete or accomplish your job. Just like I have to re-certify with cranes every year, where Joe Schmo who doesn't do it professionally doesn't.

At the end of the day LEO shouldn't have any exemptions from gun laws. Not to say I don't support and appreciate LEO, I just feel a badge doesn't earn any extra privileges outside the line of duty that us "common folk" shouldn't also have access to.

Even if all that training covers all of the required subject matters AD NAUSEUM?

Believe me! In the timespan that "common folk" have to take the class (which I don't think anyone should have to do), I will have taken it 400x more! 200 hours of state approved CJTC training vs 30 minutes on your phone! Where do I make that trade?

The law says you have to show proof, or something to that effect, of completing state approved (whatever that means) training that involves safe firearms handling, safe storage, suicide prevention, etc. It doesn't say I have to go to a specific school to do it. Does my 200 hours of training specific to those areas cover that? You bet! Can I print off my training record to prove I took the classes, yes! The only advantage I see is that I got paid to do it and didn't have to drive my own car.

But this site, along with other gun related sites, has gone increasingly looney and anti-cop. The other day, there were 3 anti-police threads in the top 10 most tread on subjects. As far as I know, no member on here who is in LE has done anything bad to anyone. No one is talking about the "common folk" member who lit his house on fire, shot at the responders, and then shot himself.

 

[Red98422]

Even if all that training covers all of the required subject matters AD NAUSEUM?

Believe me! In the timespan that "common folk" have to take the class (which I don't think anyone should have to do), I will have taken it 400x more! 200 hours of state approved CJTC training vs 30 minutes on your phone! Where do I make that trade?

Trust me I know where your coming from, in the Corps we had a ridiculous amount of classes every year on the same range to shoot the same qualifications and practice every year. That was two whole weeks every year, but that was My job!

That said I don't believe we should allow LEO to slide on this mandatory "training" (truly is barely worth the title). I don't feel that bodes well or sets a good example for future fights where we could certainly use the support of those LEO for fighting against these BS laws.

It's these seemingly innocent first steps that start the gulf between "us and them" as the saying goes. Id rather we suffer or succeed together as a single community, rather than allow LEO to be "bought out" by benifitial laws. Trust me I'm not trying to paint you or those LEO I've met in a bad light, as even the best can be tempted and overcome. I've litteraly lived through this and seen how it starts, as I was born and raised in Kali.

 

[No_Regerts]

I would agree if there was one specific class we all had to take. But, there isn't.

 

[Diamondback]

@No_Regerts Not trying to cop-bash--after all my ex and I owe our lives, and her children their very having a chance to exist at all, to mentorship from a number of your colleagues four of whom are End Of Watch--just saying there should be some uniform standard. And admittedly still a little sore about the FOP (screw that A-hole Canterbury) etc welshing on the deal about "you get us OUR Nationwide Carry via LEOSA and we'll bootstrap you CCW's along for the ride."

 

[GWS]

Every professional needs to recertify . As a teacher. I had to take classes every year. That comes with the territory. But I received zero special privileges for it other than I got to keep my job. It IS a special privilege for LEO to be exempted from the requirements of a law. And if this flies, there will be more and more which will create further resentment. Back in the PRK, the most egregious exception was from the "Safe handgun roster ". Meaning if a handgun manufacturer didn't pay California's grift to get their handgun certified as "safe", they couldn't sell their guns to civilians in CA.
BUT...LEO's were exempted from that law. Mind you, to buy a handgun or any firearm for that matter, a CA civilian needs fo pass a safe handling test every 5 years but that wasn't good enough to buy non-roster handguns. Exempted LEO's bought all sorts of them and sold them at great profit to civilians.
Tell me how is an "unsafe" gun safe if a LEO is shooting it?
No, the laws had nothing to do with safety. The exemptions were a payoff to the LEO unions to buy their support for gun control laws. Period
And that is what builds resentment for what is viewed as special privilege for law enforcement.

 

[bentoncity]

I wrote to Klippert & a few others in the House/Senate and stated I couldn't/wouldn't support his HB2202 'exception revision'. I included some opinions from some public forums, without any names of course, and got this nasty-gram back.. guess I PO'd them..

It is good to hear from you Dan, but your crude language toward Rep. Klippert isn't constructive or considerate. I understand you have strong opinions, but so do all of us. I am a bit surprised you didn't take the time to read the bill before emailing, and that you pointed out that fact. I would encourage you to read it with consideration for the extensive training given to members of law enforcement. It appears to reduce duplication of training requirements for members of law enforcement, which completely makes sense to me. This is a bill that I would likely support.​

I made SPECIAL note the opinions were un-redacted and I not once used any foul/crude language towards Klippert. I also read the full bill before mailing those elected reps. So where the reply implied I didn't read the bill is ???

Here's my msg to Klippert.. I'm leaving out the opinions that were in the msg..

Brad,
In as much as I'm pretty sure where you're coming from on this issue, The public & myself are utterly unable to support your position. As the old adage goes, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Some of 'Your' constituents helped passed the law that forced this upon the ENTIRE group of legal & lawful gun owners and law enforcement agencies in the state. Apparently the repercussions are now coming to light? What a surprise, NOT! Perhaps you should have been vocally critical of 1639? Yes? No?

As an FYI for you, I'm including some opinions as expressed on public forum about your decision to promote HB 2202... (un-redacted I might add)

(Opinions were here)

I believe I do understand your position but sometimes you need to bite the bullet and find a different approach to resolve the issue. HB 2202 is definitely NOT the correct way to approach this. HB 2202 'creates' an "Us vs. Them" discrepancy that society is not nor should ever accept. IE: Big Govt vs. Citizens

If you, and the other individuals (Walsh/Rude/Jenkins) I sent my proposed new legislation on initiatives to, would sponsor and support it, then perhaps the voters of the state could reign in these foolish initiatives that have now shown to be hampering/hindering our LEO agencies? What a concept.. Common sense!

In light of your HB 2202 proposal,


Dan

Yes I sent the pic as well.​

 

[Diamondback]

Just proves that Klippy is just another Olympia Elitist...

 

[awshoot]

... got this nasty-gram back.. guess I PO'd them..

... I am a bit surprised you didn't take the time to read the bill before emailing, and that you pointed out that fact. ...​

... I also read the full bill before mailing those elected reps. So where the reply implied I didn't read the bill is ???

Here's my msg to Klippert.. I'm leaving out the opinions that were in the msg..

Brad,
... "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." ...
...
Dan

Yes I sent the pic as well.​

I'll take some of that blame. I used the goose/gander adage in my post and also said I didn't read that piece of proposed legislation, the title being enough for me to not like it.

So if my post ended up in the quotes -- my bad. Apologies.

Still, it's pretty obvious Klippert skimmed your letter rather than reading it.

 

[Diamondback]

Also, tell Klippy if he were really as pro-gun as he self-proclaims he would be recognizing the importance of Equal Protection Under the Law rather than trying to slide in a "'Cuz We De Only Ones Po-fesh-no 'Nuff For Dis." All this is is a wedge for Dems to separate the LEO and LAAC communities, plain and simple.

No sir, you are NOT unique and beautiful Special Snowflakes to warrant the rules not applying to you.

Edit for clarity: I can see an exemption for Dept Issue duty weapons carried *in the line of duty*. Wanna buy your own, you get to take the same ride right alongside the rest of us. This isn't about hating badges--see previous commentary--it's about not allowing another Us-Them wedge to be driven.

 

[bentoncity]

I'll take some of that blame. I used the goose/gander adage in my post and also said I didn't read that piece of proposed legislation, the title being enough for me to not like it.
So if my post ended up in the quotes -- my bad. Apologies.
Still, it's pretty obvious Klippert skimmed your letter rather than reading it.

No blame on your end, I've used the goose/gander adage for years. (Yes I'm old)
Unknown IF Brad read it but my rep did and it was him that replied. I read the full bill before sending the msg and stand by it's a bu!!$hit bill. Brad came to a 1639 meeting in Pasco before it passed but never spoke out publicly in so far as I'm aware.

Also, tell Klippy if he were really as pro-gun as he self-proclaims he would be recognizing the importance of Equal Protection Under the Law rather than trying to slide in a "'Cuz We De Only Ones Po-fesh-no 'Nuff For Dis." All this is is a wedge for Dems to separate the LEO and LAAC communities, plain and simple.

No sir, you are NOT unique and beautiful Special Snowflakes to warrant the rules not applying to you.

Edit for clarity: I can see an exemption for Dept Issue duty weapons carried *in the line of duty*. Wanna buy your own, you get to take the same ride right alongside the rest of us. This isn't about hating badges--see previous commentary--it's about not allowing another Us-Them wedge to be driven.

I'd have to say your comment of..."No sir, you are NOT unique and beautiful Special Snowflakes to warrant the rules not applying to you." pretty much nails it. We already know how well our congress/legislature gets special treatment and I see no reason to grant privileges to anyone, even if it's our LEO's.

Dan

 

[bbbass]

No one is talking about the "common folk" member who lit his house on fire, shot at the responders, and then shot himself.

One of OUR members? Here at NWFA???

 

[awshoot]

... But this site, along with other gun related sites, has gone increasingly looney and anti-cop. The other day, there were 3 anti-police threads in the top 10 most tread on subjects. ...

1) Requiring police to live with the same stupid rules as everyone else is not anti-cop, it is anti-division.

2) By saying "police already get training so police should be good to go" this amendment implicitly legitimizes the underlying law because rather than fight the law, it suggests the idea is Constitutional by saying "yeah, we agree, but we already do the training." Such legitimization should NOT come from the pro-2A community.

3) As an addon to #2, the pro-2A legislative community should be investing political capital in laws that benefit all gun owners rather then working to pass laws that further division and legitimize anti-2A laws. Writing this law and pursing it, takes resources away from the good fight.

4) It's bad strategy. If there are any negotiations, the Anti crew can say "hey, we'll give you the police exception but you give us a mag ban" -- gun owners in general get nothing but screwed out of that exchange, but politicians can pretend to be negotiating in good faith.

So again, I'm wholly opposed.

 

[No_Regerts]

1) Requiring police to live with the same stupid rules as everyone else is not anti-cop, it is anti-division.

2) By saying "police already get training so police should be good to go" this amendment implicitly legitimizes the underlying law because rather than fight the law, it suggests the idea is Constitutional by saying "yeah, we agree, but we already do the training." Such legitimization should NOT come from the pro-2A community.

3) As an addon to #2, the pro-2A legislative community should be investing political capital in laws that benefit all gun owners rather then working to pass laws that further division and legitimize anti-2A laws. Writing this law and pursing it, takes resources away from the good fight.

4) It's bad strategy. If there are any negotiations, the Anti crew can say "hey, we'll give you the police exception but you give us a mag ban" -- gun owners in general get nothing but screwed out of that exchange, but politicians can pretend to be negotiating in good faith.

So again, I'm wholly opposed.

I understand where you are coming from, and we can be pro-2A and think its dumb to take that class. You just don't get to buy anything. If you're in the position to not buy anything like me (I keep having boating accidents), thats great.

But, if you're not in that position and you want/need to buy, you have to attest or show proof of taking some unspecified training. Again, if it was like hunter's safety with a set curriculum administered per a standard, I'd oppose it.

But its not.