Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

WA background check bill still alive - Olympia votes this Monday/Tuesday!

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by 8ball, Mar 9, 2013.

  1. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    Nick Hanauer's Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility has kept the background check bill alive. According to the Times article below, the bill has 47 supporters, and it only needs 50 to pass. Mike Hope has indicated he will support the Democrats on the bill.

    Call your local lawmaker!

    If you live in Lake Stevens, contact Mike Hope. mike.hope@leg.wa.gov Mike Hope » Washington State House Republicans

    Live in Tacoma? Steve Kirby says he is considering supporting it. Let him know at steve.kirby@leg.wa.gov Rep. Steve Kirby | Washington State House Democrats

    Lobbying intense for bill on gun limits | Local News | The Seattle Times

    Finally, Nick Hanauer, please **** off back to New York and take Ralph Fascitelli with you. :thumbup:
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  2. kumabear17

    kumabear17 Issaquah Active Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    144
    Just contacted his office and my own two District Representatives. Thank you for the update.
     
  3. mhasson30

    mhasson30 OR Active Member

    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    43
    :)
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Cigarlvr313

    Cigarlvr313 Washougal Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    531
    These vermin are disgusting....
     
  5. Heidland

    Heidland SW Washington Active Member

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    51
    Even it if passes the house, it will never pass the Senate. I've been watching them on TVW every day.
     
  6. timac

    timac Loading Magazines! Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Please don't be complacent, write or call anyway let your voice be heard.
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  7. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    Don't be so sure...this is what they said:

     
  8. Jacketed

    Jacketed Edmonds,WA Member

    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    3
    Can somebody share the link, where can I see the live proceedings of this bill?

    Thanks
     
  9. LoneStar

    LoneStar WA Active Member

    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    140
    What is a procedural move?
     
  10. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    Things like refusing to schedule bills (thereby killing them), forcing them to be read aloud (blocking all other bills), and scheduling committee sessions and votes on short notice when reps that support or oppose a bill aren't able to make it to Olympia to vote.

    These are often used for bills that are one or two votes away from passage. If you are really fired up about Bill #2, and I force you to sit in Olympia for hours listing to Bill #1 being read over and over again, I might be able to get you to abstain from voting on Bill #1 just to get it over with, and get to Bill #2.

    Democracy. It's the worst form of government, except for all the other ones. :)

    Keep the pressure on, people!
     
  11. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
  12. Heidland

    Heidland SW Washington Active Member

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    51
    It is an order of Parliamentary Procedure, or the business rules of how business is conducted within the Senate. What 8ball isn't mentioning with his statement is that this move, called the Ninth Order, requires that some members of the Majority also jump ship and vote to for the resolution (Bill). Keep in mind that this special order would have to be used more than once since the Universal Background Check bill would have to be passed out of the House Referral to the Senate Committee, then again on the Senate Floor. Even then, it would need a solid 25 votes to pass the measure in the Senate if it ever gets to the floor.

    The Ninth Order of Business states:

    Presentation of motions.

    The order of business established by this rule may be changed and any order of business already dealt with may be reverted or advanced to by a majority vote of those present.

    All questions relating to the priority of business shall be decided without debate.​

    Ie. any resolution that has already been tabled by the Majority may be re-introduced and voted upon or killed by a majority vote of those senators that are present on the senate floor at the time of the order being invoked. Since the Republican-led Majority Caucus Coalition is in control of the senate this biennium we've seen a host of resolutions (bills) passed out that would have never seen the light of day with a Democrat only majority.

    Currently there are 26 Democrats and 23 Republicans in the senate.

    The current Democrat Senators that have stated publicly that they would not support Universal Background Check legislation include Senator James Hargrove, Senator Brian Hatfield, Senator Nathan Schlicher, Senator Tim Sheldon and, surprisingly, Senator Rodney Tom of King County.


    EDIT: This post is not to infer that you still shouldn't be hounding your District Representatives with your views on voting against these bills.
     
  13. Kable

    Kable Lynnwood Active Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    171
    If you have not done so make sure you email your reps. Also call them in the AM and fax them if you have the capability. Let's make sure this bill dies tomorrow!
     
    8ball and (deleted member) like this.
  14. LoneStar

    LoneStar WA Active Member

    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    140
    @ 8ball
    Thanks for the info. I will be calling my reps again on Monday. This bill needs to die.
     
  15. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    Full court press on background checks

    A confidential source in Olympia advised Examiner over the weekend that Vice President Joe Biden may be calling some wavering Democrats Monday to encourage their support for a “universal background check” bill…

    Full court press on background checks - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com


    Call legislative hotline 1-800-562-6000 and leave a message for your legislators.

    All bets are off.
     
  16. Kable

    Kable Lynnwood Active Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    171
    Biden needs to leave states alone. I just emailed my reps Mike hope and Jamie Peterson now I'm going to take a quick break and call my reps
     
  17. kumabear17

    kumabear17 Issaquah Active Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    144
    I e-mailed all 37 sponsors of this bill last night plus my two district reps here in Issaquah who are against the bill. People like Hope seem to have this idealistic view they can save the world. The anti-gun nuts just take advantage of people like him. It was his decision to join this srupid effort which makes him a RINO needing to be voted out of office next term.
     
  18. Kable

    Kable Lynnwood Active Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    171
    Wow ok... I just got a call back from Ruth Kagi's assistant (she is one of my reps and a sponsor of the bill). She told me since she was a sponsor that she doubted I could change her mind. I asked why she supported it and was told that she is not opposed to firearm ownership (which I doubt is true) and that they heard testimony on the bill that 40 percent of sales are done privately. She believes that because of that a lot of people are selling to people who shouldn't have guns. I told her that is probably not accurate and from old studies to which get reply was that even if it was just 1 percent it might prevent someone who shouldn't get a gun from buying one. I reminded her that it's already against the law to sell to someone you know or suspect shouldn't have a gun and that the majority of firearm owners only sell to family, close friends or to someone they know is cleared by either showing a CPL or by selling at a gun show like the ones run by WAC that require members to have a background check run. She said she could see that was probably true. I told her there is no way this bill would prevent someone who at this time is already knowingly selling to a felon from selling once the bill goes through. I told her the bill was unenforceable and no one would ever get caught unless the police did some sort of sting operation. I stressed that it really wouldn't reduce crime at all. I then began explaining why this bill is bad. I mentioned it technically violates your 4 amendment rights as it requires a search of your personal data to obtain your background information to prove that you are not a felon when you have not done anything that would warrant probable cause for a search, she I explained the courts have ruled you can't be stopped by police just by having a gun and you can't have a police officer demand ID from you unless you've committed a crime or they had probable cause so why would the perfectly legal act of buying a firearm require you to produce ID and have your background check done... I could tell this wasn't going to go anywhere useful she started talking about if that were the case why should we do anything to try and prevent terrorists from getting guns. I literally face palmed and I said that I didn't want to live in a world were we sacrifice so much freedom that eveything is like going through airport security. She said she didn't either but she was willing to give up some freedom to feel safe. I know this is a slippery slope argument so I said something along the lines of I'd rather live in a fee world and risk losing some security, I don't remember exactly what I said but I wanted to quickly get onto other flaws with the bill in hopes that I could convince her I was not some nut job trying to come up with any excuse imaginable to block the bill. I started explaining the other problems with the bill. I told her that I watched the hearing and that it was brought up that federal law prohibits police from running a background check unless initiated by an FFL so this would require all sales to go through an FFL. I stressed that it was unfair to have to pay the 20 dollars and is unconstitutional as you shouldn't have to pay for a right and the supreme court ruled poll taxes are unconstitutional so why would this be any different. I also told her that FFL's range from 30-60 bucks for their fee and most would not do it for 20 bucks effectively killing all private sales. I also told her that WA state requires pistol information be retained by the dealer and submitted to police which is in direct conflict with this bill which says the records should be destroyed. I told her that an FFL would most likely not destroy them as they would be more worried about the ATF coming down on them as they are required to maintain them for a period of time and that in order for an FFL to do the background check they technically have to take possession of the firearm so they would be required to maintain the records as it would show as coming from their inventory. Which I also explained would setup a complete pistol registry since all sales now would be going through an FFL. by this time I could tell things were starting to sink in and she admitted those were some things they hadn't thought of. She asked if there were anyway I would support universal background checks. I told her that I believe they are technically unconstitutional but if they insist on trying to pass something this bill is too flawed. I stressed that if they were going to try and pass something they needed to have a system setup that was 100% free and also was somehow secure that your identity wouldn't get stolen (earlier I had also mentioned to her that the bill says the seller gets to hold onto the form 4473 which would have enough info to steal someones identity). I gave some examples like setting up some sort of online system where the buyer initiates the check and gets a code and then the seller goes online and verifies that code is good. I told her I didn't know exactly how it should be setup but that was just an example. I could tell this actually sunk in. I think she may have actually understood the identity theft issue. I'm hopeful that I've brought up enough issues with the bill that they will vote no. I doubt it but it might just be enough to start modifying it even more and the more it gets watered down the better.

    Anyway she thinks the bill will get voted on Wednesday so keep it up people and try and actually have a conversation with your rep or their assistant if possible.
     
  19. Heidland

    Heidland SW Washington Active Member

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    51
    This is the same woman that had me spitting made for her speech against military recruiters in high school (and the military in general) during the floor debates last week. No matter what you said to her, she is going to vote AYE on this bill. She loathes all things "violent."

    keep calling her though. Even if logic and reason won't make a dent, she'll know what she has to counter in her next re-election in 2014.
     
  20. Heidland

    Heidland SW Washington Active Member

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    51
    If I understand what I just watched on the floor debate, and after checking my bill tracking list on the Legislature website, this bill might be dead: "Rules Committee relieved of further consideration" It appears to have died in the Rules Committee.