WA Senate vote on silencer bill 5112 may be close.

[Grommit327]

Looks like HB 1016 has made some progress too in the Senate

 

[seattlewingsfan]

Anyone going to go to the Committee meeting on the 9th? It will most likely be uneventful since they will most likely just place it to Rules, which will probably just place it on Consent calendar since It's already passed that stage. If Calendar rolls on the floor before then they might not even talk about it.

If "knock on wood" 5112 doesn't get votes on the floor before this IE doesn't pass. EVERYONE needs to be there!

 

[Ryo]

I emailed a lot of senators.. So far only a few responded, and the ones that did respond were in support of the SB 5112. Maybe we should make a list who supports SB 5112 and HB 1016.. This way we can concentrate our effort on the ones that are neutral or against.

 

[seattlewingsfan]

I've been concentrating thus far on people that I know support it, just to make sure it got to the floor. I really think that looking at the numbers in the House on roll call. The Senate should be an easy majority at the least. And that follows along the lines of what I am hearing from Hatfields office too. Very little to no oposition.

Usually whichever bill passes it's house first, gets a reading in the other house and is substitued before that second house bill ever gets to the floor. I've been asking and confirming what happens if 5112 gets voted on and passed before Senate Committee gets to call a substitution on the 9th because only one bill can move on. This rarely ever happens, and it took 9 phone calls to get an answer.

They can make a statement on the Floor that basically upon passing 5112, companion bill HB1016 will effectivly die. And 5112 will go to the Gov's desk.

They can hold off on 5112's second reading untill after the 9th when the committe can call a substituion and 1016 will move to the Floor and 5112 will die. and 1016 get second reading, pass and goto the Gov's desk.

They can simply Pass 5112 and send it to the House where committee will start the approval in there on 5112. Much like 1016 came to the Senate. And which ever House or Senate committe calls the substitution first passes the bill onto the Gov.

All of them are good, just depends who talks abut it next.

 

[SquatchWorks]

What are the odds the gov. Will sign it?

 

[SquatchWorks]

What are the odds the gov. Will sign it?

 

[stmcelroy]

What are the odds the gov. Will sign it?

If it has overwhelming support in both the House and Senate and the backing of Law Enforcement, there is little doubt she will sign it.

 

[stmcelroy]

What are the odds the gov. Will sign it?

If it has overwhelming support in both the House and Senate and the backing of Law Enforcement, there is little doubt she will sign it.

 

[mattj]

What are the odds the gov. Will sign it?

Folks keep assuming that the Governor has to sign a bill to become law in WA, but this is NOT the case:

Within five days, if the Legislature is still in session, or twenty days after its adjournment, the Governor may sign the bill or veto all or any section of it. The Legislature can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses. If the Governor fails to act on the bill, it becomes law without a signature.

...so basically the Governor would have to go out of her way to veto it for it to not become law.

 

[seattlewingsfan]

They are correct.

I think pretty good. Especially with the percentage of support to oposition. Historically Gov's don't go against the Legislature. Partial vetos are more common than full vetos, and this bill is so simple in nature and verbage that a partial veto is not really an option.

Besides legislature can overturn a veto if need be. And if she elects not to do anything it becomes a bill after so many days anyway.

 

[Gov't Mule]

It is a good thing that she doesn't have to sign, and I don't believe she will. Folks should remember that it was in large part to her actions as State AG that FA, SBS, SBR were outlawed in WA.

 

[Bhowe]

I hope this takes awhile.. I need to send in some more form 4's before you WA nerds get to flood the ATF.

Thanks for the support

 

[8ball]

Folks should remember that it was in large part to her actions as State AG that FA, SBS, SBR were outlawed in WA.

Really? I thought those bans predated Gregoire?

 

[NoEcm]

It is a good thing that she doesn't have to sign, and I don't believe she will. Folks should remember that it was in large part to her actions as State AG that FA, SBS, SBR were outlawed in WA.

You up to giving us a history lesson? I would really like to know what happened and why it happened. It was in 1994 correct?

 

[Ranb]

I can give a partial lesson based upon the bills I have read and how they changed before they were passed into law. I only arrived in WA in 1999, so I had to look stuff up on the WA government homepage. WA had its own version of the crime bill back when Congress in DC was debating the AWB/crime bill in 1994. The WA AWB was similar to the one in DC, but also included SBR/SBS. I'm not sure how the words regarding MG's were changed though. As far as I know MG's were restricted for many years before 1994.

The crime bill was amended more than once and along the way the AWB was taken out, but the ban on SBR/SBS was left in. As far as I know, no one presented any evidence that legal SBR/SBS were a threat to the safety of anyone. I am fairly certain that unregistered sawed off shotguns were used (and still are) in WA in violent crimes. But this should have not led to the ban on those that were legally owned in the state. I found the list of people opposing and supporting the bills at the hearings, but I do not know what they said. I will have to contact them and ask if I can track them down. I intend to do this as part of my effort to make an exception for registered SBR/SBS as long as the silencer bill passes this session.

I cannot say anything bad about the governor, but I have things to say about the staff she had representing her when she was the AG from 1993 to 2005. I wrote to her in the early 2000's asking for clarification on the law banning silencer use wanting to know if a device not attached to the gun was prohibited. One of her staff wrote back telling me that silencers were illegal in the USA. When I set him straight, he gave me the answer he should have in the first place, that the AG does not give opinions to residents, just legislators, prosecutors and others in the government. The actions of the people she choose to represent her have cost her my vote since then.

Ranb

 

[NoEcm]

As far as I know MG's were restricted for many years before 1994. sawed off shotguns were used (and still are) in WA in violent crimes.

Thanks for the overview. This is the one thing that I don't understand though:

RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms — Exceptions

(1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.

(3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.

RCW 9.41.190: Unlawful firearms

Does this mean that a MG legally owned in Washington prior to July 1, 1994 is OK? Sorry, not real good with legalese.

 

[stmcelroy]

Thanks for the overview. This is the one thing that I don't understand though:

RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms — Exceptions

(1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.

(3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.

RCW 9.41.190: Unlawful firearms

Does this mean that a MG legally owned in Washington prior to July 1, 1994 is OK? Sorry, not real good with legalese.

Yes as long as it is legally registered with the BATFE