Time to make SBS/SBR legal for all WA residents.

[crosse]

got my vote of support and if you need another set of letters to my legislature.

 

[FMJ 911]

It would be really good to pass this SBR/SBS bill, as I could sell a wider range of NFA items once I get my Class III/SOT going.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I am getting no responce from the Senators that voted for the ban. I had hoped to find out why they did so. Even if they write back, it will probably be to say they have no idea why as the SBS/SBR ban was only a few paragraphs in a 97 page bill and was voted on 17 years ago. The ones that voted for the ban are;

Senator Tracey Eide (While in House of Representatives)
Senator Tim Sheldon
Senator Lisa Brown (While in House of Representatives)
Senator Paull Shin
Senator Karen Fraser
Senator Jim Hargrove
Senator Rosemary McAuliffe
Senator Margarita Prentice

Since all of them voted for the silencer bill, it would be a good idea for anyone here who is in their district to write to them and thank them for their support. You might want to mention that the SBS/SBR bill and ask if they had any reservations about civilian possession when they voted for bill 2319 back in 1994 and ask if they would support or oppose bills 2098 or 2099.

I am getting some data back from the county sheriffs on SBS crime. There is more SBS crime than silencer crime. I have yet to hear back from all of the counties yet.

Ranb

I don't understand why SBS crime in a state that outlaws them is relevant? IMO the only relevant issue in this regard is how many registered SBS nationwide are used in crime vs how many are out there..

 

[FMJ 911]

Who is going to go through all the paperwork and taxes just to buy a Legal SBS and use it in a crime? like the whole "machineguns from the US" thing in Mexico. If I wanted to rob a bank with a SBS, I'd make one rather than buy a registered one.

 

[Ranb]

I don't understand why SBS crime in a state that outlaws them is relevant? IMO the only relevant issue in this regard is how many registered SBS nationwide are used in crime vs how many are out there..

I think it is relevant because the people that voted for the ban probably do not understand (or care) about the difference between registered and unregistered firearms. The people that voted for the ban probably only cared that they were helping make more kinds of firearms illegal to own in WA State. We need to educate Olympia to the fact that bill 2319 only targeted potential lawful owners of SBS and SBR.

These are the same people that tried to convince me that silencers were illegal to own in WA, illegal in the USA, that allowing use of registered silencers would lead to their sale at gun shows "no questions asked", that they were the preferred tools of the criminal underworld and other such nonsense.

When I finish gathering crime data, I will be able to say something like; there were 120 SBS crimes reported, but there is no evidence that any of these firearms were legally possessed by the offender. Allowing possession of SBS registered after July 1, 1994 will not affect crime at all in WA.

Showing that SBS and SBR are the least reported types of firearms involved in WA crime can not hurt either.

Ranb

 

[H7K]

You guys are awesome! SBR/SBS in WA would be a dream come true, thank you to any of you were involved in the suppressor bill.

 

[Swedish K]

Going a little off topic but I recall reading an article about fifteen years ago that there had been only one documented case of a legally owned MG being used in a crime. The case involved an officer in Nebraska (if I recall correctly) who walked in on his wife and another person - shot both of them with his issue service pistol, retrieved his transferable, privately owned machine gun and fled the scene - the crime committed by the officer with his machine gun was his own suicide. Now it has been more than a decade since I read the article and I don't recall the publication but if that was the track record from the origin of the NFA registry it shouldn't be hard to persuade them to embrace MGs either. Not trying to throw a monkey wrench into the party and I realize that I am using logic and legislation is far from logical.
Either way I support any legislation that "returns" our rights to us.

 

[ScorpioMk]

This year sbr/sbs, next year machine guns. I want an hk sear more than anything.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I get it now, RanB

 

[Blitzkrieg]

This year sbr/sbs, next year machine guns. I want an hk sear more than anything.

You N me both, I am a roller locked fanatic

 

[Ranb]

Now is the time to start talking to your Representatives in Olympia about the SBS / SBR bills. Hearings are being scheduled and we do not want to miss the opportunity to get our bill into committee and passed along for a vote. In 2010 there were 4700 bills sponsored, about 1000 of them were allowed a vote on the House and Senate floors with greater than 90% passing.

Knowing this, a committee chairman is not going to give any bill a hearing unless he is told it is a priority and thinks it will pass a vote on the House and Senate floor. Pedersen was very blunt about this when I discussed the silencer bill with him a few years ago. Senator Kline is just as picky when it comes to what bills are allowed a hearing also. When we write to these men we must be brief, factual, polite and precise.

Here are the bills; 2099 (SBS and SBR) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2099&year=2011 and 2098 (SBR's only) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2098&year=2011

Here are bill 2098 sponsors;
Representatives Blake, Kretz, Hurst, Liias, Orcutt, Dunshee, Taylor, Van De Wege, Shea, Kirby, Short, Takko, Moscoso, Tharinger, Finn, Seaquist, Schmick, Sells, Ahern, Condotta, McCoy, Hope, Moeller, Goodman, McCune

If your Representative is a sponsor, write and thank them for their support. If your Representative is not on this list then they will most likely need to be educated about the merits of the bills.
Back in 1994 WA State passed their own version of the crime bill just as the federal government did. But unlike the feds, Olympia deleted the AWB portion of the 97 page bill. Like the 1994 federal crime bill the WA bill 2319-1994 contained provisions for increased spending and law enforcement intended reduce crime. It had a lengthy portion called the "legislative intent" which described the reasons why the bill was needed. The bill claimed that the media reported gun crime as "epidemic". Bill 2319 did not mention SBS and SBR except to say that they were legal at the federal level and that they were not banned by state law. N where did the bill claim that they were involved in any violent crime at all.

As you should know, all legally possessed SBS and SBR are registered, including those owned by the police and military. Therefore the only SBS and SBR owned in WA were registered in accordance with federal law. The law as it was amended only affected people who wished to own registered SBS and SBR in WA in the future and those who already owned them and wished to sell them to other unlicensed WA residents. It had little effect on criminals who owned unregistered sawed off rifles and shotguns. Using them to commit a crime was already illegal and if the state wanted to prosecute a criminal for possession of an unregistered sawed off shotgun, all they had to do was turn them over to the feds.

In other words, bill 2319 only targeted the law abiding person who paid the $200 tax and passed the FBI background check prior to making or buying his SBS or SBR.


Here is why bill 2098 should be passed into law.

The bill only eliminates the July 1, 1994 registration deadline; possession of unregistered SBS and SBR will still remain illegal.
This will bring state law into line with federal law.
Possession of an unregistered SBS and SBR has been prohibited at the federal level since 1934.
Short barreled shotguns and rifles are just as useful to the sportsman as their full sized counterparts.
Small businesses will benefit by increased sales to residents as authorized by the BATFE.
There is very little crime associated with sawed off shotguns and short barreled rifles in WA compared to other firearms
Most of the illegal unregistered SBS and SBR seized by the police were not involved in a violent crime.
There is no evidence that any legally owned and registered SBS or SBR are involved in any violent crime in Washington State

Chances are that your Democrat Representative will say this is a Republican issue, but is it not. Some of the bill sponsors are Democrats.

If they do not come out in support of the bill, ask them for a meeting to discuss the merits of the bill. While meeting a Rep or Senator can be a bit daunting the first time you do it, it is actually an easy thing to do. I am willing to go with anyone to a meeting within 100 miles of Seattle. I have met with Representaives Pedersen, Haigh and Finn in person and talked to Senator Sheldon on the phone. While I am not an expert lobbyist, I know how to educate a person on firearms. A face to face meeting can mean the difference between a "I'll think about it" response from a Rep and them becoming a bill sponsor. A face to face meeting is worth 100 letters and 1000 e-mails.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Here are the legislators that voted in favor on the SBS SBR ban back in 1994.

Senator Tracey Eide (While in House of Representatives)
Senator Tim Sheldon
Senator Lisa Brown (While in House of Representatives)
Senator Paull Shin
Senator Karen Fraser
Senator Jim Hargrove
Senator Rosemary McAuliffe
Senator Margarita Prentice

I wrote to all of them to ask why they supported the ban. Only Senator Sheldon responded. He gave me the answer I completely expected to hear. He had no idea why the ban was included in the bill. As the bill was a very lengthy document, it is not surprising that a few "unacceptable" provisions were allowed to remain as to allow passage of a bill they felt was needed very badly.

Senator Sheldon also said he supported the bills that would allow possession of SBS and SBR's. As the other Senators were not in my district, I was not expecting a reply, and I did not get any.

For those of you who are in their districts, please write to them. When you do, ask them to tell you what they hoped to gain by banning possession of registered SBS and SBR by those who would otherwise be able to obtain BATFE authorization to own them. Ask if they were aware of any crimes committed by the legal owners of these firearms; chances are they have never heard of any crimes associated with legally possessed SBS and SBR. Ask them how keeping future purchases of registered SBS and SBR illegal will help WA if they are still allowed to be possessed by those who owned them prior to July 1, 1994.

Chances are that they will have no idea why SBS and SBR were banned back in 1994. But it would be interesting to see their replies to the other questions. If they give you a BS reply like "those are illegal in the USA" or "only criminals use them", ask them for evidence to support their claims.

Ranb

 

[Dogfish]

Thanks RanB for your on topic points.

Things are heating up, so please contact your reps and senators knowing that you support the passage of both of these bills. Check the links RanB posted to see if you rep is one of the many supporting these two bills. If so, thank them.

Also running this session (regular session, not special) is HB 2137 being submitted by Blake as well. This bill, referred to as the "parking lot" bill would allow employees to carry firearms in their vehicles, and exempt employers from fault if you do. It does away with employers searching your vehicle when parking on site.

As always, be polite and direct when discussing these pieces of legislation with your reps and senators. Email is fine, letters as well. Try a call, or if possible, an in person visit if it can be arranged.

 

[Lincoln4]

I just sent emails to both my representatives. I thanked Christopher Hurst for sponsoring the bills, and asked Cathy Dahlquist to join Rep. Hurst in getting these bills moved forward.

Just sent one to Senator Roach as well.

 

[twydyn]

I have sent an email to all 44th District Legislators (Steve Hobbs, Hans Dunshee, Mike Hope) requesting there support and/or thanking them for there support. I have also requested audience with them if they do not support the bill.

Thanks ranb

 

[Ranb]

If you are waiting a long time for a reply, it is a good idea to call their office. Chances are you will only be talking to the aide, but it will prompt a reply of some sort and you can possibly make an appointment to see them.

Ranb

 

[twydyn]

I got a reply back from one of the three representatives. Here is the response:

Thank you for writing me to express your support for HB 2098. I have not yet had a chance to vote on this particular piece of legislation. However, as a current police officer and former Marine, I am a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment and will continue to support that right as a state legislator. I look forward to being able to review this piece of legislation and will keep your comments in mind.

Best,

Rep. Mike Hope

 

[Ranb]

Here are a few photos to show why the SBS/SBR ban does not make any sense. The legislative intent of 1994's bill 2319 did not say why possession of SBS and SBR needed to be a felony, but I would not be surprised to hear that the legislators were thinking of easily concealed sawed off shotguns and short rifles.





I do not have access to any actual SBS's and SBR's, so I modified the photos of my firearms to show how an SBS and SBR can be larger than a rifle or shotgun. It is plain to see that ease of concealment is no reason to ban them. Feel free to use these photos when discussing the bill with your legislator.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I called Katy Buck to request a meeting with the House Judiciary Chairman. I was told that since next Tuesday (1/31) is the cutoff date for bills requiring a hearing, bill 2099 will not get one. In other words, it appears to be dead for this session.

This was a surprise to me as the House cutoff calendar has not been published online at the usual link yet. 2011 Session Cutoff Calendar 18 days into the session and no published calendar online; that sucks.

But this is not entirely unexpected. We have the interim to re-group and get our stuff together for another try at next session.

Ranb

 

[twydyn]

can you help me understand this? Is this because there is not enough push from the civilian side for this or not enough muscle from those we elected? When is the next session after the one coming up?