Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Sun May 05, 2024 3:41 pm



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me Shield NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 WA Initiative 1307 - Firearms Freedom Act 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Olympia, WA
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 38322
Real Name: Dan
Written by a 2A'er who resides at another site, I have offered to help spread the word about I-1307.

Quote:
Full Text of Initiative 1307


AN ACT Relating to the Washington state firearms freedom act; amending RCW 9A.16.050; adding a new chapter to Title 9 RCW; and creating a new section.BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. We, the armed and unarmed citizen body of the state of Washington and the United States, hereby petition this initiative against any restrictive firearm legislation and prescribing penalties based on the following criteria:
(1) United States Constitution, amendment 2: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
(2) United States Constitution, amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
(3) United States Constitution, amendment 14, section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(4) Washington state Constitution, article 1, section 24: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the State, shall not be impaired, but nothing in the section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
(5) Washington state Constitution, article 10, section 1: Who liable to military duty. All able bodied male citizens of this state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or by the laws of this state, shall be liable to military duty.
(6) Washington state Constitution, article 10, section 4: Public arms. The legislature shall provide by law, for the protection and safe keeping of the public arms.
(7) United States code, title 10, subtitle A, part I, chapter 13, § 311 – Militia: Composition and Classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males at least seventeen years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under forty-five years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the national guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are:
(i) The organized militia, which consists of the national guard and the naval militia; and
(ii) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the national guard or the naval militia.
Let the record stand that the law abiding citizenry of this state declare that any restrictive firearm legislation is a direct violation of the constitutionally protected liberties of this free body; that the legislation is destructive to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Assault weapon" means any weapon that can fire more than one round with a single or constant pull of the trigger, or has a selector switch that allows the weapon to shoot more than one round when engaged. "Assault weapon" includes assault rifles.
(2) "Borders of Washington" means the boundaries of Washington.
(3) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm including, but not limited to, telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding, telescopic or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, bayonet lug, and lights or lasers for target illumination.
(4) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes, but is not limited to, springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(5) "Machine gun" means any fully automatic weapon.
(6) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness including, but not limited to, forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
(7) "Semi-automatic weapon" means any weapon that only fires one round with every pull of the trigger.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The citizens of Washington state deem it necessary that all citizens be secure in or on their own property. A person or his or her property shall be searched or seized according to:
(1) The United States Constitution, amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(2) The Washington state Constitution, article I, section 3: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. Records shall not be created or maintained by any government agency for the purpose of tracing or tracking firearm ownership of the people, commonly known as a gun registry, and shall be deemed as a direct infringement of both state and federal Constitutions. Any person of the state of Washington, being of age and sound mind, shall have the freedom to keep and bear arms.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. The health insurance portability and accountability act protects the privacy of individual identifiable health information and must not be violated by state or federal agency. Any person seeking mental help from a health care or medical professional, as set by this chapter, may not be deemed as a health risk to the safety of the public and shall not have his or her firearms confiscated. The exception of this chapter has been set forth by law for specific illnesses, which would previously deny a person from possessing a firearm. It is in the best interest of the people to promote a sound mental health profession for those who seek it freely without fear of judgment or persecution of law.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. No health care professional is required to report any mental health information to federal or state agencies. The only exception to this section is if the health care professional has a reasonable suspicion of harm that may or will occur to the individual or others.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. The free body of the state of Washington object to any restrictive firearm legislation, proposed or otherwise, and demand that the elected representatives remain bound to the restraints of their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, that any alterations, any infringements, or impairments of the right to keep and bear arms is treason against the Constitution, and requires the particular representative or senator be voted for expulsion, censure, or reprimand by a simple majority vote.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. Any person who reasonably believes that a life is in imminent danger shall have the option to stand his or her ground in accordance with RCW 9A.16.050 and may not be required to retreat.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. All civilian firearms may be referred to as "pistol," "rifle," "shotgun," "long gun," "firearm," or "personal defense weapon."
NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. No state funds, state resources, or law enforcement agencies shall be used to enforce any federal legislation that violates any articles or amendments to the Washington state or United States Constitution, or this act.
Sec. 11. RCW 9A.16.050 and 2011 c 336 s 354 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(((1))) (a) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(((2))) (b) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
(2) There is no requirement to give notice of the use of deadly force in subsection (1)(a) and (b) of this section if it is reasonably determined that imminent danger or harm is to be committed.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. Sections 1 through 10 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 9 RCW.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. This act may be known and cited as the Washington state firearms freedom act.



I know he is going to be looking for volunteers to help gather signatures etc and I am going to try to get him over here to talk to us.


For a view of the actual Initiative and signature page, click on the pics below.
Image
Image


Thu May 16, 2013 5:22 am
Profile WWW
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
I'm not getting it, several of the definitions (assault weapon, semi-automatic etc.) aren't referenced anywhere.
The citations of existing bits of the state constitution (in New Sec 1) hardly seem like they need to be included in a new RCW chapter.


Thu May 16, 2013 6:05 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Olympia, WA
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 38322
Real Name: Dan
Assault Weapon is referenced in Sec 2.


Thu May 16, 2013 6:31 am
Profile WWW
In Memoriam
User avatar
In Memoriam

Location: South King County, WA
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 2011
Posts: 5846
The first place I got stuck was this, so I fixed it (with added red text):

". . . NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. No health care professional is required to report any mental health information to federal or state agencies. The only exception to this section is if the health care professional has a reasonable suspicion of harm that may or will occur to the individual or others within the next twenty-four hours. . . ."

It's hard enough to predict a patient's behavior during the next day, let alone for the remainder of his/her life.

EDIT: Actually, I'd get rid of the passive voice, too:
". . . The only exception to this section is if the health care professional has a reasonable suspicion that his patient may harm himself or others within the next twenty-four hours. . . ."

_________________
M D "Doc" Nugent
NRA RSO

Synopsis of Rules for Radicals: http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds" - Bob Marley
104th Division Image Timberwolves


Last edited by DocNugent on Thu May 16, 2013 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu May 16, 2013 6:44 am
Profile WWW
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
Massivedesign wrote:
Assault Weapon is referenced in Sec 2.


It is defined in Sec 2. I don't see it referenced anywhere else.


Thu May 16, 2013 6:48 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Federal Way
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012
Posts: 5492
I signed this petition yesterday while visiting Sagewa (he has copies).
It may not be perfect but it protects us and our rights.

The big issue is getting enough signatures in time to allow the people to vote on it!

_________________
Banned for calling GOD a racist! Oh that's tight, Seattle guns is DEAD!


Thu May 16, 2013 7:14 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bonney Lake
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011
Posts: 3294
i've posted these on TOS but here they are again:

Quote:
I've attached the Word and .PDF initiative to the email. Page 1 goes on front (obviously) and page 2 on back. There is a place for you to print your name in the first paragraph on page 2. It is required if you are collecting signatures on that particular sheet. If you have another person collecting, for example, you forward the initiative to another person, they must print their name on the back.

We have until 05 July 2013 to have them turned in, so I will need them on or around 01 July 2013. This is so I can plan accordingly to get the sheets to the SOS's Office.


.docx https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz8syOn66hZ0cG5odVFoTlZqeFE/edit?usp=sharing
.pdf https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz8syOn66hZ0RUxRbWRRVXFtN2s/edit?usp=sharing

sorry Dan, i'm not sure if the images you posted are printable in proper format

and folks, please remember, that $ donations are needed too, every little bit helps i'm sure :patriot:


Thu May 16, 2013 8:19 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Olympia, WA
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 38322
Real Name: Dan
Thanks, I hosted the PDF, DOC and JPG files here as well.

www.WaGuns.org/memberfiles/I1307


Thu May 16, 2013 8:40 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Location: Renton
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011
Posts: 12
Real Name: Orion Webster
ANZAC wrote:
I'm not getting it, several of the definitions (assault weapon, semi-automatic etc.) aren't referenced anywhere.
The citations of existing bits of the state constitution (in New Sec 1) hardly seem like they need to be included in a new RCW chapter.


The definitions aren't necessarily designed to be used in the Initiative itself, but to help the general populace better the correct terminology. Just remember that if this becomes law, it can be used to define other initiatives or laws. Section 2 sets the record straight for the people and law makers.

I would agree that Section 1 almost seems pointless to the gun owners that take this seriously. However, it was important to identify the source of this initiative/laws. Secondly, if Section 1 was common sense, then why are we having this gun crisis in America? Especially from this tyrannical president who was a "Constitutional Scholar/Lawyer?"

Section 1 needs to be a reminder for all of us.

_________________
Web

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-Abraham Lincoln


Thu May 16, 2013 9:51 am
Profile YIM
User avatar

Location: Renton
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011
Posts: 12
Real Name: Orion Webster
DocNugent wrote:
The first place I got stuck was this, so I fixed it (with added red text):

". . . NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. No health care professional is required to report any mental health information to federal or state agencies. The only exception to this section is if the health care professional has a reasonable suspicion of harm that may or will occur to the individual or others within the next twenty-four hours. . . ."

It's hard enough to predict a patient's behavior during the next day, let alone for the remainder of his/her life.

EDIT: Actually, I'd get rid of the passive voice, too:
". . . The only exception to this section is if the health care professional has a reasonable suspicion that his patient may harm himself or others within the next twenty-four hours. . . ."


We have to use the correct language here. Otherwise, it would be very easy to corrupt.

_________________
Web

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-Abraham Lincoln


Thu May 16, 2013 9:52 am
Profile YIM
User avatar

Location: Renton
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011
Posts: 12
Real Name: Orion Webster
ANZAC wrote:
Massivedesign wrote:
Assault Weapon is referenced in Sec 2.


It is defined in Sec 2. I don't see it referenced anywhere else.


In Section 9, I list all definitions for civilian weapons, but it excludes assault weapons. It's important that we have a clear definition of what an Assault Weapon is and how it does or doesn't apply to the rest of the initiative. Especially Section 9.

_________________
Web

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-Abraham Lincoln


Thu May 16, 2013 9:55 am
Profile YIM
User avatar

Location: Renton
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011
Posts: 12
Real Name: Orion Webster
Classic wrote:
I signed this petition yesterday while visiting Sagewa (he has copies).
It may not be perfect but it protects us and our rights.

The big issue is getting enough signatures in time to allow the people to vote on it!


Thank you for your signature and support. And yes, we have an issue of a month and a half to collect 300,000 signatures.

_________________
Web

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-Abraham Lincoln


Thu May 16, 2013 9:57 am
Profile YIM
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
Webster82 wrote:
ANZAC wrote:
I'm not getting it, several of the definitions (assault weapon, semi-automatic etc.) aren't referenced anywhere.
The citations of existing bits of the state constitution (in New Sec 1) hardly seem like they need to be included in a new RCW chapter.


The definitions aren't necessarily designed to be used in the Initiative itself, but to help the general populace better the correct terminology. Just remember that if this becomes law, it can be used to define other initiatives or laws. Section 2 sets the record straight for the people and law makers.



It actually says they apply to that RCW chapter. Why put them in and then potentially limit it?
And we're going to have an RCW to tell people how to speak?

Quote:

I would agree that Section 1 almost seems pointless to the gun owners that take this seriously. However, it was important to identify the source of this initiative/laws. Secondly, if Section 1 was common sense, then why are we having this gun crisis in America? Especially from this tyrannical president who was a "Constitutional Scholar/Lawyer?"



Right, but that's the kind of stuff that is usually in a bill preamble, but not in the codified changes.

This initiative has fail written all over it because it has too much random stuff in it, the same reason the background check bill failed.

There should just be a really short initiative to make clear that any federal law that limits the type of guns or magazines beyond what is allowed under state law can not be enforced in WA. All the other stuff is window dressing.

And all of the mental health stuff seems way too preemptive. A better system needs to evolve, no one has produced it yet. I think there needs to be a better flow of information to NICS on people with serious mental health issues, not just an imminent danger. Someone who has psychotic episodes may not have demonstrated an imminent danger, but I am not crazy about them having access to firearms. Right now the state law is really clear (9.41.040), and there's a process. As long as that remains in place, or is carefully amended, there's no privacy risk.

But anyway, best of luck.


Fri May 17, 2013 6:24 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
Webster82 wrote:
ANZAC wrote:
Massivedesign wrote:
Assault Weapon is referenced in Sec 2.


It is defined in Sec 2. I don't see it referenced anywhere else.


In Section 9, I list all definitions for civilian weapons, but it excludes assault weapons. It's important that we have a clear definition of what an Assault Weapon is and how it does or doesn't apply to the rest of the initiative. Especially Section 9.


It doesn't specify assault weapons, but it doesn't specifically exclude them. It should say "Civilian weapons do not include assault weapons" or something like that.

And it doesn't have any force of law, it just says "referred to".

What are you trying to achieve?


Fri May 17, 2013 6:29 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Monroe, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011
Posts: 1364
Real Name: Dustin
ANZAC wrote:
Webster82 wrote:
ANZAC wrote:
I'm not getting it, several of the definitions (assault weapon, semi-automatic etc.) aren't referenced anywhere.
The citations of existing bits of the state constitution (in New Sec 1) hardly seem like they need to be included in a new RCW chapter.


The definitions aren't necessarily designed to be used in the Initiative itself, but to help the general populace better the correct terminology. Just remember that if this becomes law, it can be used to define other initiatives or laws. Section 2 sets the record straight for the people and law makers.



It actually says they apply to that RCW chapter. Why put them in and then potentially limit it?
And we're going to have an RCW to tell people how to speak?

Quote:

I would agree that Section 1 almost seems pointless to the gun owners that take this seriously. However, it was important to identify the source of this initiative/laws. Secondly, if Section 1 was common sense, then why are we having this gun crisis in America? Especially from this tyrannical president who was a "Constitutional Scholar/Lawyer?"



Right, but that's the kind of stuff that is usually in a bill preamble, but not in the codified changes.

This initiative has fail written all over it because it has too much random stuff in it, the same reason the background check bill failed.

There should just be a really short initiative to make clear that any federal law that limits the type of guns or magazines beyond what is allowed under state law can not be enforced in WA. All the other stuff is window dressing.

And all of the mental health stuff seems way too preemptive. A better system needs to evolve, no one has produced it yet. I think there needs to be a better flow of information to NICS on people with serious mental health issues, not just an imminent danger. Someone who has psychotic episodes may not have demonstrated an imminent danger, but I am not crazy about them having access to firearms. Right now the state law is really clear (9.41.040), and there's a process. As long as that remains in place, or is carefully amended, there's no privacy risk.

But anyway, best of luck.


Sounds like maybe you should write your own initiative. In the meantime maybe we could just show some support to the guy that's actually trying to do something.


Fri May 17, 2013 6:50 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.623s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]