- Messages
- 38
- Reactions
- 58
I have sent the following letter to the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Bill sponsors and members of the Committees that the Bills were sent to.
I encourage you to also contact all the above to express your displeasure with these bills.
While I certainly give everyone permission to copy my letter and forward it to them under your name, it is much more effective if letters on the same subject are not all the same. Legislative staff pay more attention to letters that written by individuals than to letters that are all the same, just with different names.
One approach you can use is to copy portions of my letter, perhaps change the wording or use mine for a template for your own. If they get thousands of these, they will pay attention.
I also intend to modify my letter and send that letter to my own representatives with comments to them, personally.
Be polite, state what the problem is with the Bills and what you want done about it. While it is understood to be VERY difficult not to come across as angry and to call them names, it is very much counterproductive. Be courteous and professional in all of your communications with State officials. If your letter is obviously just an angry rant, it will go directly into the junk file and never be read. And, you can't blame them for it.
I will also modify it and send that one to all of the Democrats (the only Bill sponsors) and point out to them that this political issue should never again be brought forward if they ever intend to win future elections. The coming changes to the U.S. Supreme Court will look for opportunities to nullify such laws.
P.S. Obviously, my format did not work here. If you use some or all of this letter, please correct the format on you computer.
TO: Washington State Governor Jay Inslee
Washington State Lieutenant Governor Cyrus Habib
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson
Senators Ranker, Kuderer, Wellman, Saldaña, Liias, Darneille, Chase and Cleveland
Senate Law & Justice Committee Members Padden, O'Ban, Pedersen, Angel, Darneille,
Frockt and Wilson
Representatives Peterson, McBride, Gregerson, Ortiz-Self, Ryu, Berquist, Fey, Pollet, Doglio,
Santos, Frame, Farrell and Macri
House Judiciary Committee Members Jinkins, Kilduff, Rodne, Muri, Frame, Goodman, Graves,
Haler, Hansen, Kirby, Klippert, Orwall and Shea
DATE: 1/15/17
FROM: R. Theron Cammer, 4012 W. Opal St., Pasco, WA 99301 (509) 542-0504
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 5050 and House Bill 1134
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am dismayed that these two bills have been introduced at the request of the Attorney General. They would both be in violation of the Washington State Constitution, Section 24.
Regarding "assault rifles", they are already illegal in the State of Washington. The definition of an "assault rifle" includes being fully automatic, in which the gun fires with one pull of the trigger until all of the ammunition is used up. The semi-automatic firearms being targeted with these bills are not assault rifles, no matter what the popular Press, individuals and legislators think.
Please consider this: so-called assault rifles literally cannot be defined. The Federal Government could not do it when, under Bill Clinton, the Brady Bill was passed.
Past attempts to define such firearms include, as this bill does, combining certain features and saying "This is an assault rifle". I ask you: when was the last time anyone was harmed by a thumb-hole stock?
Here's a run-down on the items in these bills that are trying to be used to define an assault rifle and the problems with including these features:
Pick your favorite problem item and read about it below.
A thumb-hole stock? Why?!? The shooting hand is in exactly the same position as it is with a
conventional stock. Nothing can possibly be gained or prevented by banning this item.
A semi-automatic action? A person who has a little experience with a pump-action rifle can
shoot almost as fast, within fractions of a second.
A detachable magazine vs. a non-detachable magazine? Many antique firearms load using clips,
which can be reloaded in less than a second. Newly-made models would immediately be
forthcoming.
A bayonet lug? Really?!? When was the last time someone was killed with a bayonet lug?
A pistol grip? Nobody has ever been killed by a pistol grip. What possible difference does it
make whether the hand is vertical or horizontal when shooting?
A folding or collapsible stock? Again, how many?
A second handgrip? All rifles are designed to be fired with two hands. It's part of the definition
of what a rifle is. It doesn't matter whether the non-shooting had is vertical or horizontal.
A flash suppressor? No flash suppressor eliminates muzzle flash, despite its name.
A muzzle break? They only help mitigate felt recoil. It also makes the gun louder, which could
even help the police locate a shooter. No one has ever been killed by one. I have multiple
handguns with muzzle breaks on them and most shooters don't even like them because
they're too noisy and more readily damages hearing. They would not even make a decent
club. And, because they're very loud, when I go to the range to shoot them I choose a spot
as far from anyone I can, just to be polite.
A threaded barrel? There is only one use for the end of the barrel being threaded and that is to
mount a suppressor (silencer). Suppressors are legal in this state, so denying a threaded
barrel also would have the effect of making suppressors illegal again. I would like to point
out that suppressors were made legal in the State only after the Federal Government told the
State that possession and use by law enforcement was illegal under the previous law. Also,
many states are passing laws that allow common use of suppressors to preserve the hearing
of shooters, especially while hunting, when they are not wearing hearing protection.
Eliminating suppressors is, therefore, literally dangerous to the health of the people who
elected you.
A muzzle compensator? Only a different name for a muzzle brake and not used outside certain
shooting games. And no one was ever murdered at a Cowboy shooting match.
A grenade launcher? When was the last time one was used outside of war? And how many
civilians even have access to grenades? Also, the end of the bare barrel itself, with no
modifications, could be used to launch grenades.
A fixed magazine that holds more than ten rounds? There are many of them out there. Pistols
exist that can, as originally manufactured, load twenty rounds or more. These would be
grandfathered.
Large Capacity Magazines? Why? An experienced shooter can insert a new magazine in
fractions of a second. The stated intention is so that a shooter cannot shoot as many rounds
as fast. I've never heard, however, what anyone thinks is going to happen in that extra
fraction of a second. So, again, why? What difference could it possibly make?
ALL current semi-automatic pistols have the capacity to accept detachable magazines. A
magazine is not the gun. With a semi-automatic pistol you can use an after-market
magazine of any capacity.
Thus, in a Colt 1911 (the most common handgun in America), you can use either its original
seven round magazine or a twenty round magazine. With this proposed bill, you would
be effectively banning ALL semi-automatics.
ALL handguns have a grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand. It's called the gun barrel
and/or frame.
What difference does it make whether it's protruding or not?
A shroud? I have a few pistols that have a shroud. ALL pistols are able to be fired when the
barrel is hot just by using one hand. Being able to hold and shoot it with one hand is part of
the Federal definition of what a handgun IS. Who has ever been killed by a shroud? Also,
most shrouds used on AR-style rifles (what you're trying to ban with this bill) do not
completely encircle the barrel. Also, ALL rifles can be fired with only one hand, too.
Most of them have holes in many locations that allow air to flow through and that cools the
barrel. What you're trying to ban with this is only very, very rarely sold these days and are
not a problem. The ability to accept a magazine outside the pistol grip? I don't know of any
made today. The ones that do exist are all antiques that would be grandfathered anyway.
Overall length of 30 inches? Why? There's already a Federal law that bans sawed-off rifles and
shotguns.
A shotgun with a pistol grip, thumbhole stock or vertical handgrip? Why?
A shotgun with a detachable magazine? As far as I know, there is only one that is even on the
market and is generally unknown. If hardly anyone even knows they exist, how are they a
problem?
A shotgun with a revolving cylinder? Ditto.
Every gun dealer in the state, as well as tens of thousands of citizens would be guilty of violating
the banning of parts that could be used to make an assault rifle under this proposed
legislation. And, since property can only be confiscated under due process, it would cost the
State untold millions to buy them from their owners, the gun dealers and/or prosecute them.
Also, anyone with a machine shop could (and do) make such parts in minutes. Under this
verbiage ANY and ALL parts for an AR-style rifle would be illegal, as would any gun,
grandfathered or not, because they already possess the parts.
IN CONCLUSION: This proposed law is unconstitutional, does not allow for due process and is an
attempt to define the undefinable. It is simply a gun-grab for strictly political purposes.
What problem does it attempt to solve?
It violates recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and would cost the State untold millions in court
costs, lawsuits from its citizens and other outside agencies.
It is nothing more than an attempt to criminalize the lawful behavior of the State's citizens by
playing to the politics of the gun-control politicians and is an affront to the citizens of this
State.
It would create instant criminals out of tens to hundreds of thousands of honest, law-abiding
citizens. And for what purpose? Just to score "political points"?
Many law-abiding citizens simply would not comply with this, and there isn't money available in
State taxes to prosecute and jail the many, many thousands of criminals this law would
invent.
The majority of the above-mentioned features have zero application to any problems this would
address, perceived or real. Many of these features being used to define an "assault rifle"
here are literally absurd.
As was done after the Brady Bill passed, gun manufacturers will simply delete some of their current
features. It had the unanticipated effect of lowering the cost of the guns, making the
manufactures even more money!
The greatest gun salesman in history is Barak Obama. His attempts at gun restrictions instigated
the biggest gun buying spree in American (and probably world) history. Is that what you
want to do? Hillary would have sold so many guns that even Obama wouldn't have come
close to her!!!
I have noted that all of the Bill co-sponsors are Democrats. One of the biggest groups that
contributed to Hillary's failed election was the NRA, as well as other gun owners. Even Bill
Clinton acknowledged the fact that the NRA hurt Al Gore and even caused him to lose his
home state in the presidential election. Donald Trump was elected (by the Electoral College)
due in part to those who are tired by the liberal agenda in this country and rebelled against it
by electing him. Bear in mind that Hillary only won 40 to 50 counties in the entire nation.
The Democrats are foolish if they don't forever ban the subject of gun control from their party
if they ever hope to be in power again.
Law-abiding gun owners have grown weary and rebellious about proposals to ban legal guns rather
than real criminals being prosecuted and locked up. WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, and
we won't allow ourselves to be blamed anymore, especially when those who break the
existing laws are not taken off the streets! Even the Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanual, has
finally come to understand that the people committing gun violence are those who
should have been in prison already! And he is vehemently against guns and resisted all
all attempts to make them legal in Chicago. Now, average, every-day people can defend
themselves against the criminals that are not in prison. The problem is not us, the
law-abiding, it's mostly those who are already convicted criminals. How many law-abiding,
tax-paying citizens do you want to become criminals just for politics' sake?
Don't you have anything more important to do this session than trying to criminalize and make war
against your constituents? Like, fix the education budget problem?
Why is time being wasted on this?
I encourage you to also contact all the above to express your displeasure with these bills.
While I certainly give everyone permission to copy my letter and forward it to them under your name, it is much more effective if letters on the same subject are not all the same. Legislative staff pay more attention to letters that written by individuals than to letters that are all the same, just with different names.
One approach you can use is to copy portions of my letter, perhaps change the wording or use mine for a template for your own. If they get thousands of these, they will pay attention.
I also intend to modify my letter and send that letter to my own representatives with comments to them, personally.
Be polite, state what the problem is with the Bills and what you want done about it. While it is understood to be VERY difficult not to come across as angry and to call them names, it is very much counterproductive. Be courteous and professional in all of your communications with State officials. If your letter is obviously just an angry rant, it will go directly into the junk file and never be read. And, you can't blame them for it.
I will also modify it and send that one to all of the Democrats (the only Bill sponsors) and point out to them that this political issue should never again be brought forward if they ever intend to win future elections. The coming changes to the U.S. Supreme Court will look for opportunities to nullify such laws.
P.S. Obviously, my format did not work here. If you use some or all of this letter, please correct the format on you computer.
TO: Washington State Governor Jay Inslee
Washington State Lieutenant Governor Cyrus Habib
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson
Senators Ranker, Kuderer, Wellman, Saldaña, Liias, Darneille, Chase and Cleveland
Senate Law & Justice Committee Members Padden, O'Ban, Pedersen, Angel, Darneille,
Frockt and Wilson
Representatives Peterson, McBride, Gregerson, Ortiz-Self, Ryu, Berquist, Fey, Pollet, Doglio,
Santos, Frame, Farrell and Macri
House Judiciary Committee Members Jinkins, Kilduff, Rodne, Muri, Frame, Goodman, Graves,
Haler, Hansen, Kirby, Klippert, Orwall and Shea
DATE: 1/15/17
FROM: R. Theron Cammer, 4012 W. Opal St., Pasco, WA 99301 (509) 542-0504
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 5050 and House Bill 1134
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am dismayed that these two bills have been introduced at the request of the Attorney General. They would both be in violation of the Washington State Constitution, Section 24.
Regarding "assault rifles", they are already illegal in the State of Washington. The definition of an "assault rifle" includes being fully automatic, in which the gun fires with one pull of the trigger until all of the ammunition is used up. The semi-automatic firearms being targeted with these bills are not assault rifles, no matter what the popular Press, individuals and legislators think.
Please consider this: so-called assault rifles literally cannot be defined. The Federal Government could not do it when, under Bill Clinton, the Brady Bill was passed.
Past attempts to define such firearms include, as this bill does, combining certain features and saying "This is an assault rifle". I ask you: when was the last time anyone was harmed by a thumb-hole stock?
Here's a run-down on the items in these bills that are trying to be used to define an assault rifle and the problems with including these features:
Pick your favorite problem item and read about it below.
A thumb-hole stock? Why?!? The shooting hand is in exactly the same position as it is with a
conventional stock. Nothing can possibly be gained or prevented by banning this item.
A semi-automatic action? A person who has a little experience with a pump-action rifle can
shoot almost as fast, within fractions of a second.
A detachable magazine vs. a non-detachable magazine? Many antique firearms load using clips,
which can be reloaded in less than a second. Newly-made models would immediately be
forthcoming.
A bayonet lug? Really?!? When was the last time someone was killed with a bayonet lug?
A pistol grip? Nobody has ever been killed by a pistol grip. What possible difference does it
make whether the hand is vertical or horizontal when shooting?
A folding or collapsible stock? Again, how many?
A second handgrip? All rifles are designed to be fired with two hands. It's part of the definition
of what a rifle is. It doesn't matter whether the non-shooting had is vertical or horizontal.
A flash suppressor? No flash suppressor eliminates muzzle flash, despite its name.
A muzzle break? They only help mitigate felt recoil. It also makes the gun louder, which could
even help the police locate a shooter. No one has ever been killed by one. I have multiple
handguns with muzzle breaks on them and most shooters don't even like them because
they're too noisy and more readily damages hearing. They would not even make a decent
club. And, because they're very loud, when I go to the range to shoot them I choose a spot
as far from anyone I can, just to be polite.
A threaded barrel? There is only one use for the end of the barrel being threaded and that is to
mount a suppressor (silencer). Suppressors are legal in this state, so denying a threaded
barrel also would have the effect of making suppressors illegal again. I would like to point
out that suppressors were made legal in the State only after the Federal Government told the
State that possession and use by law enforcement was illegal under the previous law. Also,
many states are passing laws that allow common use of suppressors to preserve the hearing
of shooters, especially while hunting, when they are not wearing hearing protection.
Eliminating suppressors is, therefore, literally dangerous to the health of the people who
elected you.
A muzzle compensator? Only a different name for a muzzle brake and not used outside certain
shooting games. And no one was ever murdered at a Cowboy shooting match.
A grenade launcher? When was the last time one was used outside of war? And how many
civilians even have access to grenades? Also, the end of the bare barrel itself, with no
modifications, could be used to launch grenades.
A fixed magazine that holds more than ten rounds? There are many of them out there. Pistols
exist that can, as originally manufactured, load twenty rounds or more. These would be
grandfathered.
Large Capacity Magazines? Why? An experienced shooter can insert a new magazine in
fractions of a second. The stated intention is so that a shooter cannot shoot as many rounds
as fast. I've never heard, however, what anyone thinks is going to happen in that extra
fraction of a second. So, again, why? What difference could it possibly make?
ALL current semi-automatic pistols have the capacity to accept detachable magazines. A
magazine is not the gun. With a semi-automatic pistol you can use an after-market
magazine of any capacity.
Thus, in a Colt 1911 (the most common handgun in America), you can use either its original
seven round magazine or a twenty round magazine. With this proposed bill, you would
be effectively banning ALL semi-automatics.
ALL handguns have a grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand. It's called the gun barrel
and/or frame.
What difference does it make whether it's protruding or not?
A shroud? I have a few pistols that have a shroud. ALL pistols are able to be fired when the
barrel is hot just by using one hand. Being able to hold and shoot it with one hand is part of
the Federal definition of what a handgun IS. Who has ever been killed by a shroud? Also,
most shrouds used on AR-style rifles (what you're trying to ban with this bill) do not
completely encircle the barrel. Also, ALL rifles can be fired with only one hand, too.
Most of them have holes in many locations that allow air to flow through and that cools the
barrel. What you're trying to ban with this is only very, very rarely sold these days and are
not a problem. The ability to accept a magazine outside the pistol grip? I don't know of any
made today. The ones that do exist are all antiques that would be grandfathered anyway.
Overall length of 30 inches? Why? There's already a Federal law that bans sawed-off rifles and
shotguns.
A shotgun with a pistol grip, thumbhole stock or vertical handgrip? Why?
A shotgun with a detachable magazine? As far as I know, there is only one that is even on the
market and is generally unknown. If hardly anyone even knows they exist, how are they a
problem?
A shotgun with a revolving cylinder? Ditto.
Every gun dealer in the state, as well as tens of thousands of citizens would be guilty of violating
the banning of parts that could be used to make an assault rifle under this proposed
legislation. And, since property can only be confiscated under due process, it would cost the
State untold millions to buy them from their owners, the gun dealers and/or prosecute them.
Also, anyone with a machine shop could (and do) make such parts in minutes. Under this
verbiage ANY and ALL parts for an AR-style rifle would be illegal, as would any gun,
grandfathered or not, because they already possess the parts.
IN CONCLUSION: This proposed law is unconstitutional, does not allow for due process and is an
attempt to define the undefinable. It is simply a gun-grab for strictly political purposes.
What problem does it attempt to solve?
It violates recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and would cost the State untold millions in court
costs, lawsuits from its citizens and other outside agencies.
It is nothing more than an attempt to criminalize the lawful behavior of the State's citizens by
playing to the politics of the gun-control politicians and is an affront to the citizens of this
State.
It would create instant criminals out of tens to hundreds of thousands of honest, law-abiding
citizens. And for what purpose? Just to score "political points"?
Many law-abiding citizens simply would not comply with this, and there isn't money available in
State taxes to prosecute and jail the many, many thousands of criminals this law would
invent.
The majority of the above-mentioned features have zero application to any problems this would
address, perceived or real. Many of these features being used to define an "assault rifle"
here are literally absurd.
As was done after the Brady Bill passed, gun manufacturers will simply delete some of their current
features. It had the unanticipated effect of lowering the cost of the guns, making the
manufactures even more money!
The greatest gun salesman in history is Barak Obama. His attempts at gun restrictions instigated
the biggest gun buying spree in American (and probably world) history. Is that what you
want to do? Hillary would have sold so many guns that even Obama wouldn't have come
close to her!!!
I have noted that all of the Bill co-sponsors are Democrats. One of the biggest groups that
contributed to Hillary's failed election was the NRA, as well as other gun owners. Even Bill
Clinton acknowledged the fact that the NRA hurt Al Gore and even caused him to lose his
home state in the presidential election. Donald Trump was elected (by the Electoral College)
due in part to those who are tired by the liberal agenda in this country and rebelled against it
by electing him. Bear in mind that Hillary only won 40 to 50 counties in the entire nation.
The Democrats are foolish if they don't forever ban the subject of gun control from their party
if they ever hope to be in power again.
Law-abiding gun owners have grown weary and rebellious about proposals to ban legal guns rather
than real criminals being prosecuted and locked up. WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, and
we won't allow ourselves to be blamed anymore, especially when those who break the
existing laws are not taken off the streets! Even the Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanual, has
finally come to understand that the people committing gun violence are those who
should have been in prison already! And he is vehemently against guns and resisted all
all attempts to make them legal in Chicago. Now, average, every-day people can defend
themselves against the criminals that are not in prison. The problem is not us, the
law-abiding, it's mostly those who are already convicted criminals. How many law-abiding,
tax-paying citizens do you want to become criminals just for politics' sake?
Don't you have anything more important to do this session than trying to criminalize and make war
against your constituents? Like, fix the education budget problem?
Why is time being wasted on this?
