Platinum Supporter
Gold Supporter
Silver Supporter
Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 2,155
- Reactions
- 5,878
You can listen to the discussion in the Law & Justice Committee (yes it's an oxymoron) about creating a NEW Agency in the State named...Washington office of firearm violence prevention that was discussed on 1/21/2020 here. Start at 1:27:23 with the staff report that precedes the testimony.
From the bill
(IMHO) On its face, it doesn't scream out like it's onerous in some manner or form. Read the bill (4 pages long) and then imagine someone like ferguson, inslee or even jinkins leading the office.
ferguson & inslee are already pushing the legislature with their anti-gun stance and I can only surmise the head of this new agency, appointed by the governor, will be using this new agency to make 'local based recommendations' to the legislature.
I liked the comments from the bill supporters about we're not focusing or including gang activity in this. (around 1:43) Say WHAT? They're not going to include gang activity into their 'research' about gun violence? I guess that pretty much sums up the intent of, 'just give us money for whatever'.
On the other hand, the speaker for the con (around 1:44) starts out making some VERY good points about the fiscal aspects and finishes as well or better then his start.
Interesting how most every supporting speaker was from king county.. but... keep on til 1:54 for another con side. The NRA speaker made some good factual points. Dan Mitchell, from Sporting Systems, made some really valid points on this entire agency being made up of political appointees with no accountability. Ya think? At least Dan and the previous con speaker made these 'officials' doubly aware.
Call me paranoid if you want but I can forsee this being used as a purported 'the locals want/demand it' scenario for future legislation. Additionally, the con speakers raised some valid points on how will this office and "GRANTS" they're going to give out, be paid for?
Note: those moms demand action were at this hearing as well like they were at the meetings yesterday with their bright red t-shirts. More of their yada yada bs but they were there, up front and visible. That's where we, as responsible law abiding gun owners, need to be in order to carry our message to the politicians.
Some of us don't live in/around Olympia and can't afford to attend these hearings.
Dan
From the bill
(b) Researching, identifying, and recommending legislative policy options to promote the implementation of statewide evidence-based firearm violence intervention and prevention strategies;
15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) The Washington office of firearm16violence prevention is created within the department for the purposes of coordinating and promoting effective state and local efforts to reduce firearm violence.
(b) Researching, identifying, and recommending legislative policy options to promote the implementation of statewide evidence-based firearm violence intervention and prevention strategies;
(7) The office shall form a grant selection advisory committee including, without limitation, persons who have been impacted by violence, formerly incarcerated persons, and persons with direct experience in implementing evidence-based violence reduction initiatives, including initiatives that incorporate public health and community-based approaches.
(IMHO) On its face, it doesn't scream out like it's onerous in some manner or form. Read the bill (4 pages long) and then imagine someone like ferguson, inslee or even jinkins leading the office.
ferguson & inslee are already pushing the legislature with their anti-gun stance and I can only surmise the head of this new agency, appointed by the governor, will be using this new agency to make 'local based recommendations' to the legislature.
I liked the comments from the bill supporters about we're not focusing or including gang activity in this. (around 1:43) Say WHAT? They're not going to include gang activity into their 'research' about gun violence? I guess that pretty much sums up the intent of, 'just give us money for whatever'.
On the other hand, the speaker for the con (around 1:44) starts out making some VERY good points about the fiscal aspects and finishes as well or better then his start.
Interesting how most every supporting speaker was from king county.. but... keep on til 1:54 for another con side. The NRA speaker made some good factual points. Dan Mitchell, from Sporting Systems, made some really valid points on this entire agency being made up of political appointees with no accountability. Ya think? At least Dan and the previous con speaker made these 'officials' doubly aware.
Call me paranoid if you want but I can forsee this being used as a purported 'the locals want/demand it' scenario for future legislation. Additionally, the con speakers raised some valid points on how will this office and "GRANTS" they're going to give out, be paid for?
Note: those moms demand action were at this hearing as well like they were at the meetings yesterday with their bright red t-shirts. More of their yada yada bs but they were there, up front and visible. That's where we, as responsible law abiding gun owners, need to be in order to carry our message to the politicians.
Some of us don't live in/around Olympia and can't afford to attend these hearings.
Dan
