1/28/2005
More on the WA Senate Anti-Gun Hearings
Again from THR.
Links to this article in The Columbian (Vancouver, WA).
One of the bills I haven't mentioned, SB 5433 and HB 1489, would ban citizens with CCW permits from carrying in the state Capitol, a practice which is currently legal.
Best quote in the thread, from Beren:
Prime sponsor Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park, said lawmakers shouldn't have to worry about angry and armed constituents. "We don't need that type of pressure," she said.
How wrong you are, madam. "That type of pressure" is exactly what you need to feel while you are crafting legislation.
I quite agree. A healthy fear of the citizenry is a good thing for the governing class to have.
Permalink
|
WA PSA: GOA Enters the Fight
Annoyingly enough, this announcement doesn't even mention SB5475, the state AWB and home searching bill. But it's a start.
-------------
Contact Your State Senator To Stop Quick-moving Anti-gun Bills!
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
January 28, 2005
Dear Washington gun owner,
Earlier this week, anti-gun hearings were held in Olympia. Those who
would rob you of your liberty are gearing up for an all-out assault
on your gun rights this year. The full list of proposals reads like a
Sarah Brady wish list.
What we need to do at this point is to stop a couple of the
fastest-moving bills dead in their tracks. This will "take the wind
out of the sails" of the rest of the gun grabbers' agenda.
It is imperative that all Washington gun owners show fierce
opposition in the state Senate. Please make it a point to contact
your senator as soon as possible. The two bills we need to block at
the moment are:
SB 5342 (Kohl-Welles et. al.): This is a perennial "Lock Up Your
Safety" storage bill that anti-gunners have salivated over for years
(and successfully passed in other states). Basically, it would force
you to keep your home defense gun under lock and key. When seconds
count, that could cost you or a loved one your life. Should a
juvenile gain access to a loaded firearm not locked up according to
government-determined criteria, YOU would be instantly branded a
criminal... even if the adolescent caused no injury with the gun!
Prosecutors already have broad discretion in the "reckless
endangerment" statue this bill amends... it's not like truly
irresponsible adults get a free pass under current law. And
certainly, the government has no business dictating the manner in
which you keep a weapon in the home for lawful self-defense.
SB 5343 (Kohl-Welles again, plus others) is an outright ban on
private sales at gun shows, with an eye towards putting gun shows out
of business altogether. Individuals would be forced to make any sale
at a gun show through an FFL with its resulting instant registration
check. Plus, the State Police would be authorized to impose an
unspecified fee above what the dealer charges for his services.
But most insidious of all is a provision requiring the show's
promoter to make certain all of this happens. If one person doesn't
get the word about the new rules and makes a sale, the promoter is in
violation... which could end gun shows as we know them, not to
mention the drop in attendance that would surely accompany all of
this rigamarole.
Note that we aware of several other odious bills introduced. If those
shows signs of significant movement, the focus will have to shift.
But for now, the best way to stop those other bills is to kill these
two first.
ACTION: Please politely bur firmly insist that your Senator oppose
SB 5342 and SB 5343. You can identify and contact him or her by
visiting http://www.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/Default.aspx where both
look-up and e-mail contact info is available.
----- Suggested message -----
Dear Senator ____________
I am urging you to oppose two bills aimed at hurting my
constitutional right to keep and bear arms! SB5342 and SB5343 both
need a NO vote at every stage in the legislative process.
SB 5342 is an unnecessary bill that will make it difficult for me to
defend my loved ones and property. It is nothing more than a "Lock Up
Your Safety" bill which is otherwise meaningless, given that
Washington already has reckless endangerment statutes for prosecutors
to use against the truly negligent.
SB 5343 would ban ALL private individual sales of firearms at gun
shows -- and is designed to shut down gun shows altogether by holding
promoters responsible for the actions of patrons. And no matter what
those seeking to disarm me will tell you, gun shows are NOT the venue
of choice for violent felons seeking firearms. Not even close.
It is very important that my gun rights be adequately defended, so I
urge you to vote no on these bills, as well as any others that seek
to infringe upon my rights. Please let me know what you intend to do.
Sincerely,
****************************
Permalink
|
Wow...This Could Be Really Bad
This was pointed out in the thread on this issue at THR. Read Section (18)(c) of SB 5475 very closely, and tell me, is it just sloppy wording, or is it as deliberately malicious as I think it is?
(18) "Assault weapon" means:
(c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;
The way it is written, that makes all semi-auto pistols and centerfire rifles into 'assault weapons." And, given the GFW nature of King County Governor Christine Gregoire, and thus anyone she's likely to appoint as AG, they'd interpret it exactly that way.
Permalink
|
1/27/2005
More on the WA GFW Bills
Looking at the most onerous three of the proposed citizen gun control bills now banging around the Washington state legislature.
.50 cal ban- I couldn't find a bill # on this one, but from the reports I've seen, it's pretty much like the one in the PRK, with all the accompanying fear-mongering about shooting down airliners, igniting fuel storage tanks, and causing deer to explode from 2 miles away.
Now, SB 5343. It's the basic "gun show loophole" bilge bill, i.e. all sales must be either made by a licensed dealer or go through one, with some troublesome wrinkles that I haven't seen before.
Sec. 1 A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(2) The licensed dealer shall:
(b) Obtain approval of a transfer from the local law enforcement agency for a handgun or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, national crime information center, for a long gun, in accordance with RCW 9.41.090 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 et seq.
Now, if I'm reading this right, this means that in order to purchase a pistol at a gun show, whether from Bubba who's selling his extra shotgun to pay for new tires on his truck or an FFL, I need to approval of the local police chief or sheriff. Excuse me, but since when does Gil Kerlikowski, who can't even keep his own sidearm from being stolen, get to have any say over whether I can buy a gun or not?
(4) The Washington state patrol will establish a reasonable fee to cover costs for each background check conducted at a gun show or event.
Now, it's news to me that the state patrol does much besides give people speeding tickets on I-5. Now they want to impose a "reasonable fee" to conduct a background check on gun purchases at gun shows? First off, who gets to decide what "reasonable" is? When government agencies are given discretion as to how high a fee should be, they tend to make them quite high, especially for activities that said bureaucrats, or their politically appointed bosses, don't favor. Witness the $200 transfer fee on NFA Class III weapons, $200 being more than the cost of a Tommygun in 1934.
Also, it would seem to me that this fee would only apply to guns bought a gun shows. I bought 3 pistols, a shotgun, and 2 rifles during the 3 years I lived in Washington, and I don't remember paying any "background check fee" on any of them. So this "fee" would seem to be a backdoor attempt to shut down, or at least discourage, gun shows, by making guns bought there cost more than if purchased at a regular gun store.
Now, to the truly hideous SB 5475, a state AWB.
Sec. 1 RCW 9.41.010 and 2001 c 300 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:
(18) "Assault weapon" means:
(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also possesses any of the following:
Given that pretty much any semi-auto that uses a detachable magazine can be fed from a magazine with greater than a ten round capacity-I've seen 20 rounders advertised for 1911s-this is an extremely broad definition. 20 and 30 round detachables are available even for rifles like the SKS, which was designed with a 10 round fixed magazine. Which could allow the Seattle Socialist (SS) GFWs to include on of their favorite evil rifles.
(i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located rear of the trigger;
(ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
Trying to catch all the thumbhole stocked weapons that complied with the Clinton Gun Ban and confounded the Brady folks.
(iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a telescoping stock;
(iv) A barrel shroud;
What is it with barrel shrouds? The only civilian weapon I've seen with a barrel shroud is the TEC-9, the weapon of choice of Hollywood gangstas, maybe even some real ones, but not many others. Except maybe gun nuts who have one just to annoy Sarah Brady. But overall, a low-grade gun thats way overhyped.
However, if you delve into the definition, you can get something broader:
20) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.
It looks like to me that the front handguards on pretty much all variants of the AR-15 family would meet this definition, along with the FAL, CETME/G3, AR-180, and FNC.
(v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
OK, we'll just go back to calling them flash suppressors.
(vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
So none of those vertical foregrips that ya'll keep putting on your ARs. They're naughty.
(b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
The other obligatory TEC-9 clause.
(c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;
So no more of those Chi-Com fixed 20 round mags for your SKS, even though, from what I've heard, their reported lack of reliability might actually reduce the lethality of a criminal with an SKS.
(d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
I guess they finally noticed the Saigas.
(e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
(f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of any person.
No more separate AR uppers with naughty bits and no parts kits period.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1) No person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon conversion kit, except as authorized by subsection (3) of this section. Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited under this section is a public nuisance.
A public nuisance? Please. I own an AR, an M14 (Fed Ord. semi), and 3 SKSs, and not one of them has been a nuisance to anyone but me (in trying to find somewhere to put them all.) Why don't you sanctimonious Seattle Socialist twits just come out and say it. You think it's dangerous for the peasantry to have effective tools for resisting infringements on their liberty.
(2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.
So, even if I have one these weapons that the SS so fears, I can't keep magazines for it loaded with more than 10 rounds, even on my own property. (Exceptions to this, Sec 2 (4)(a) & (b) while at a range or sanctioned shooting sports event. And of course, if you're turning it in to the police to be destroyed. I've got news for you people: if any of my firearms are going to be "destroyed by the police," it will be because I was using them to club any police trying to take them away from me, and that only after I run out of ammunition.)
Now, for those of us who own EBRs before this bill may be enacted:
(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
(a) Within ninety days following the effective date of this section, submit to a background check identical to the background check conducted in connection with the purchase of a firearm from a licensed gun dealer;
Most of the time, they already had one when they bought the weapon. But that's not good enough. They have to make you do it again.
(b) Unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, immediately register the assault weapon with the sheriff of the county in which the weapon is usually stored;
Can I register it by placing a bullet from said weapon into his cranium at high velocity? Registration = confiscation. Fuck you.
(c) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;
Excuse me? Say that again? You think I'm going to let any law enforcement personel come into my home and look at my gun collection without a warrant? Allow me to remind you of a somewhat old piece of writing:
Amendment IV: 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.
Last time I checked, a gun registration list did not constitute a warrant. Being on said list does not constitute probable cause for issuing one. And, as I stated before, no law enforcement personel enter my home without one.
(d) Annually renew both the registration and the background check; (Add to this Sec 2. (7) The sheriff of a county may charge a fee for each registration and for each registration renewal pursuant to subsection (5) of this section.)
Translation: You must annually debase yourselves and pay tribute to us, the Enlightened SS, in order to continue to possess your legally owned property.
(e) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container during transport.
So, even if I have one, I can't take to my buddy Bill's farm to shoot at tin cans, because Bill's farm isn't a licensed firing range. And the Lord knows, there really aren't a whole lot of licensed rifle ranges available, and the SS are doing everything they can to put those out of business.
That's all I've got for now. I'm not sure even the PRK is this disgusting. And if these pass and the Army sends me back to Washington, it looks like I'll have a lot of shopping to do before I move.
Permalink
|
That's News to Me
From Say Uncle! comes this personality type quiz.
You are a SEDF--Sober Emotional Destructive Follower. This makes you an Evil Genius.
You are extremely focused and difficult to distract from your tasks. With luck, you have learned to channel your energies into improving your intellect, rather than destroying the weak and unsuspecting.
Your friends may find you remote and a hard nut to crack. Few of your peers know you very well--even those you have known a long time--because you have expert control of the face you put forth to the world. You prefer to observe, calculate, discern and decide. Your decisions are final, and your desire to be right is impenetrable.
You are not to be messed with. You may explode.
Of the 82181 people who have taken this quiz since tracking began (8/17/2004), 14.2 % are this type.
The fact that I am officially an Evil Genius will be news to my wife, who is convinced I'm quite the innocent.
Permalink
|
Dispatch from the Front Lines in WA
Moderator Pax at THR submits this report on yesterday's state Senate justice Committee metting:
I was at the hearing and just got home a few minutes ago.
It went about as you'd expect.
The room was packed full of very angry gun owners, and actually overflowed into two other rooms. Quite a crowd given the last-minute nature of the announcements. Most of us hadn't seen the most obnoxious bit of legislation, the Assault Weapons Ban, and got our copies just a few moments before the hearing began.
The proposed WA AWB is very much more restrictive than the recently expired federal ban, and includes the wonderful savory innovation of allowing the top cop of your county to inspect your home & storage facilities "not more than" once a year. The bill doesn't lay out any sort of standards for what constitutes safe or unsafe storage, doesn't say what will happen if the storage is unsatisfactory in the top cop's mind, and does say that a fee will be charged every time the gun's yearly registration is renewed. The amount of the fee is not specified.
The folks testifying for the anti-gun legislation were:
1) Mostly from King County
2) Mostly on the public payroll (eg Police Chief, head firefighter honcho, etc)
The few who were not, were folks representing Washington Ceasefire and the Physicians for ... er, public safety? social policy? I forget -- anyway, the organization has been around awhile and is basically just another Brady Bunch spinoff.
We were well represented by some paid lobbyists -- Joe Waldron and Brian Judy both did an excellent job testifying for us. There were also a lot of "just plain folks" called up to speak, so the committee chair did not allow each of our paid professional speakers to speak on each bill (he made them share their time, something he didn't require of the other side). I also think, sigh, the committee chair worked pretty hard at calling the scruffier-looking amongst us ... and I know that by calling a lot of "plain citizens" to speak, he was hoping most would make fools of themselves.
The crowd was interesting. Gun owners were all wearing the gun owners' uniform: blue jeans (mostly clean), flannel shirts or tee shirts with cover vests, and cowboy boots. My son remarked on the prevalence of beer bellies in the gun owner crowd. I noticed a few tats, leather, and long hair. It was obvious everyone had made some effort to clean up, and equally obvious that we were a working-class crowd, and not white collar workers either. There were not a lot of women on our side, only three or four of us. The women on our side looked, IMO, better than the men, but nowhere near as good as our opponents did.
Our opponents were dressed in navy or black business suits (males), or dressed up in high heels, stockings, business length skirts, etc (females). They looked a heckuva lot more presentable than we did, and a lot more professional.
The committee chair, Senator Kline, was noticeably anti-gun but worked hard to make it look like he was being fair and balanced. For instance, he said he would allow equal testimony time from each side. Very fair and balanced -- but far more than 3/4 of the crowd I saw was pro-gun. So the committee, apart from using their eyes, did not actually get a fair representation of the constituency in the room. The chair announced he would read out the numbers of folks who'd signed in to testify pro & con, but did so only once -- and that one was one of the earlier bills discussed. The ratio was 20 pro gun to 1 anti gun. After that he "forgot" to read the numbers again. Maybe it's in the transcripts.
The hearing dragged out for two and a half hours, but each person got to testify for only two minutes, plus questions at the end if the committee members were so inclined. And the testimony was limited to three or four people per side per bill.
The questions from the committee were sometimes amusing, sometimes provocative, and sometimes very interesting. Several of the committee members are plainly on our side (Senator Hargrove comes to mind here), but they appear to be outnumbered by the antis -- and not all of the ones on our side were able to stay throughout the entire hearing. This made the hearing a little more hostile to our side than it could otherwise have been. (Still, the crowd was soooo much on our side that even the committee chair and the most anti-gun of the members looking daggers at the witnesses didn't do much to intimidate folks from speaking their minds.)
The chair kept saying that he didn't usually say much, or hadn't said much, etc -- but his face said volumes, and he did say rather a lot. He argued with several of the witnesses, and got a pretty good laugh when he was grilling Joe Waldron. Waldron said that the Gun Show bill was imposing what amounted to a new tax, a really unfair tax. The chair interrupted to say, "It's a FEE, not a TAX, I just want to make that clear..." The rest of his words were drowned out in laughter from the crowd.
My prediction is that most of these bills will pass out of committee nearly unscathed, unless we all get up off our butts and do something about it.
Permalink
|
1/26/2005
Wishing a Speedy Recovery
Gunner at No Quarters is recovering after successful surgery. Stop by and wish him well.
Permalink
|
Great Piece on Social Security
From OpEds.com
Charles Ponzi would have been proud
Dan Sernoffsky
In 1920, an Italian immigrant named Charles Ponzi went into business in Boston, setting up an investment business that promised outlandish returns. Invest in the enterprise, he said, and that investment would be doubled within 45 days.
There were plenty of willing investors, and, for some, there really was the promised return.
The problem was that there really wasn’t an investment. The whole thing was a fraud, and the way it worked was that the early investors were paid with money collected from later investors. By the time the whole thing fell apart, a lot of people had lost a lot of money, and five banks wound up collapsing. It was a basic pyramid scheme, but thanks to the man who ran it, it got a new name. It is now known to history as a “Ponzi scheme,” and there a lot of people who try to run one.
One of those people was a guy named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Only when he signed his Ponzi scheme into law in 1935, it was called “Social Security.”
Read it all.
Permalink
|
An Excellent Example of Husband-Wife Teamwork
Armed Citizen quote of the year: "I was trying to blow his brains out is what I was trying to do."
From CNN via THR
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- \When two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot, owners Bobby and Gloria Doster never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire.
The armed suspect and his partner were killed. The Dosters won't be charged, according to local officials, because they were acting in self-defense.
"I just started shooting," said Gloria Doster, 56. "I was trying to blow his brains out is what I was trying to do."
Shoats Grocery & Package near Crawford, 70 miles east of Atlanta, is a well-known spot where locals stop for breakfast biscuits or lunch. Gloria Doster said the two men who came there Monday had something else in mind.
She was rearranging boxes of soda by the store's front door when a man wearing a wig walked inside, the fake hair draped in front of his face.
"I asked him, 'Can you see to walk?"' Doster said. Then she noticed a second man behind him wearing a mask. He announced a holdup.
One man grabbed Gloria Doster and pushed her toward the register. She said the other kept his gun on her 62-year-old husband, who also goes by the name Shoats.
She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed.
At that point, Bobby Doster pulled out a .380-caliber handgun and shot one of the suspects. Gloria Doster then went for a 9 mm pistol she keeps near the register.
"All hell broke loose," she said. "I was trying to shoot and dial 911 at the same time."
Both suspects took cover behind the store's meat counter as the Dosters opened fire. Gloria Doster said she doesn't know how many bullets were fired, or how many times the suspects were hit.
Police arrived about five minutes after receiving Gloria Doster's call; the suspects died a short time later at a hospital.
The bloodshed, nevertheless, startled Gloria Doster, who has been around guns all her life, and has used them for target shooting. "But I never figured I'd have to use them on anybody," she said.
She said the worst thing that's happened in the seven years the couple has owned the store was an after-hours break-in by teenagers three years ago. The burglars were promptly arrested.
Two fewer goblins walking the earth. Que Queen...doop, doop, doop...Another one bites the dust...
Permalink
|
1/25/2005
A Vision of a More Perfect World
Courtesy of Stephen Halbrook, we are taken to the Swiss Knabenschiessen. HT to MoNsTeR at THR.
The greatest shooting festival in the world for youngsters takes place every year in Zurich, Switzerland. Imagine thousands of boys and girls shooting military service rifle over three days amid an enormous fair with ferris wheels and wild rides of all kinds. You’re at the Knabenschiessen (boys’ shooting contest).
Held since the year 1657, the competition traditionally has been both a sport and a way of encouraging marksmanship in a country where every male serves in the militia army. Today, girls compete along side the boys. In fact, girls are now winning the competition.
It’s September 13, 2004. In the U.S. on this date, the Clinton fake “assault weapon” ban sunsets. In Zurich, some 5,631 teens – 4,046 boys and 1,585 girls, aged 13-17 – have finished firing the Swiss service rifle, and it’s time for the shootoff.
Did you catch that, Sarah Brady? Service rifle, as in real live Sig assault rifles.
Zurich’s youngsters who shoot military rifles have a lesson to teach Americans. It is a lesson of peace, family values, and responsibility, while gaining the ability to defend oneself and one’s community from aggression. As was well known to America’s Founders, who were enamored of the Swiss model, teaching the young to shoot is both a civic virtue and a wonderful sport.
Read the whole thing. It's great. Now I know when to go to Switzerland.
Permalink
|
1/24/2005
An IMAO Look at Social Insecurity
Frank is his usual hilarious self. Read it all here.
* Social Security is founded on the principle, that, because some people won't save for retirement, all must be punished.
...
* If instead of the government taking the money you were allowed to take it and shove it up your ass, you'd get a better return on the money and not be quite as pissed off.
Permalink
|
Seattle Liberals (Redundancy Alert) Try Again to Give Finger to Rest of Washington
Feeling their oats after cheating their way to electing a Dem guv, the ruling elite city leaders of Seattle, led by Mayor Drag Nuckles Greg Nickels, are trying to weasel their way around I-200, law since 1998, which ends race and gender preferences by state and local government. This after their previous attempt to sneak around the law failed.
From the Seattle Times:
The mayor's new proposals represent a "small, but important step forward," said Councilman Richard McIver, chairman of the council's Finance Committee, which approved the measures last week.
The mayor's legislation does not include financial incentives but would:
• Try to make city departments and contractors more aggressively solicit bids from women- and minority-owned businesses.
I don't really have a problem with trying to get more bids from minority or female owned companies, although I think it's a waste of money. It's kind of like the outreach recruiting programs colleges have adopted recently.
• Allow city contracts to set numerical goals for the share of contracts that should go to women- and minority-owned business.
Can you say "quotas" ladies and gentlemen? I'm pretty sure the law says you can't do this.
• Prohibit the city from contracting with companies that do not try to hire women- and minority-owned businesses.
This sounds a lot like the NFL's moronic "You have to interview a black guy if you're hiring coaches" policy. I can see companies that do lots of business with the city compiling a list of women-and minority-owned subcontrators that they know aren't competitive to ask for bids in order to get around the proposed rule.
The mayor's legislation notes that Seattle residents "overwhelmingly opposed I-200"
Guess what Mayor Greg? The rest of the state overwhelmingly supported it. You don't actually run the state; you just think you do.
and says changes are "necessary to respond to the dramatic decline in the use of women- and minority-owned business enterprises" by city contractors.
As long as the city is getting good value for the money it spends, why does it matter that the contractors and subcontractors are red, yellow, black, or white, and wear jock straps or bras?
Permalink
|
In Which I Break the Tenth Commandment
As I covet the grips on this Colt Delta Elite that THR member 3000FPS is offering for sale. I already have a stainless DE, but I only have the ugly stock grips. I want I want I want.
Pic to drool over:
Permalink
|
Until Then...
I've seen this before, but it's still good. HT: Zendo Deb.
Until then.
Permalink
|
Harrier pr0n
For all you Jarhead zoomies.
It's really a pity that M-1s and Bradleys don't have gun cameras.
Permalink
|
At Least Some Folks in the UK Get RKBA
From the London Telegraph:
Restrictive "gun control" in Britain is a recent experiment, in which the progressive "toughening" of the regulation of legal gun ownership has been followed by an increasingly dramatic rise in violent armed crime. Eighty-four years after the legal availability of pistols was restricted to Firearm Certificate holders, and seven years after their private possession was generally prohibited, they still figure in 58 per cent of armed crimes. Home Office evidence to the Dunblane Inquiry prior to the handgun ban indicated that there was an annual average of just two incidents in which licensed pistols appeared in crime. If, as the Home Office still asserts, "there are links between firearms licensing and armed crime", the past century of Britain's experience has shown the link to be a sharply negative one.
If Britain was a safer country without our present system of denying firearms to the law-abiding, is deregulation an option? That is precisely the course that has been pursued, with conspicuous success in combating violent crime, in the United States.
Read the whole thing.
Permalink
|
Intrigueing Referrals
The referal log on Sitemeter is one of the more fun things about the service, especially looking at the web searches that brought people to my site. I get a lot of referral for the Krebs KTR-03S, which is high on my wish list, but low on the affordability scale. Although I hope to obtain one soon so I can write about it and help all those searchers out.
Some search referrals, however, are just plain strange:
"judicious crapholes" via Google. Remarkably, I'm the only entry Google turns up for that particular search.
"allah cow with guns" via somewhere in the Netherlands. Dude, if Allah had meant for cows to use guns, he would have made them bipedal and given them hands.
Permalink
|
Washington State PSA
First they steal the election, and now they're trying to steal you rights.
-------------
GOAL Post 2005-3
Legislative Update from Olympia 21 January 2005
MAJOR ANTI-GUN BILLS FILED
HEARING SCHEDULED 25 JANUARY
MAXIMUM ATTENDANCE REQUESTED
Recall during the campaign period Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry taking photo ops at a trap range in Wisconsin, receiving a shotgun at a union rally in West Virginia and going goose hunting in Ohio? Or all the talk in the newspaper op-ed pages by Democrats after the
election about reaching out to “red staters?”
Forget about it.
Several extremist gun control bills have been scheduled for a public hearing – even before bill numbers are assigned (thus preventing the public from obtaining copies of the bills or referencing bill numbers when calling their legislators). One bill will ban possession of “assault weapons” in the state, with the definition of “assault weapon” being much broader than the recently-expired Clinton gun ban. For example, under the Washington bill, M1 carbines and Ruger Mini-14s would be banned, as would any detachable magazine semi-auto or pump rifle or shotgun with a SINGLE “military feature.” No more than 10 rounds may be loaded in any magazine (even in your HOME) except at a recognized firing range. Another bill bans rifles chambered for the .50 caliber Browning machine gun cartridge (.50 BMG). Both bills will allow those who currently possess such firearms to keep them (if you owned it BEFORE the
effective date) – but ONLY after registering it with local police, undergoing a background check (for an unspecified fee), renewing the registration and background check ANNUALLY – again for an unspecified fee, and the best part: Law enforcement agencies are allowed to conduct an annual inspection of your home to ensure you are “safely and
securely” storing the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle properly (no definition of “safely and securely” is given). Assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles may only be possessed at home, at a range, or transporting directly in between those locations. Under an “emergency clause,” the laws take effect as soon as Governor Gregoire signs them.
That’s the quick and dirty explanation of the impact of the bills. As soon as bill numbers are assigned and you can obtain copies from the Legislative Web Site or the Bill Room, I will send another GOAL message.
The old “Whitney Graves” safe storage bill has been refiled as SB 5342 (Senator Kohl-Welles, D-36). If a child obtains your loaded firearm, you may be found guilty of a gross misdemeanor and face a year in jail, even if no harm resulted. Amazingly, if someone is harmed as a result of the act, the prosecuting attorney is given explicit permission to DECLINE to prosecute. This is bizarre!
SB 5343 (Senator Kohl-Welles, D-36) is the same old Washington Ceasefire “gun show loophole” bill that’s been beating around for four years now. It would require ALL firearms transferred at a gun show to be processed
by a licensed federal firearms dealer, subject to a background check, with an unspecified fee to be charged by the state patrol (AND a fee to be charged by the dealer, naturally). The definition of “gun show” includes the parking lots and other curtilage areas of a gun show, placing the burden of patrolling the parking lot on the gun show promoter.
SB 5344 (Senator Fairley, D-32) would make it a criminal offense to possess a firearm inside the Legislative Building (capitol building) on the state Capitol Campus. The Washington State Patrol would be required to provide lock boxes or some other form of secure storage for lawfully-carried pistols. This is the same provision that is in place for court houses… that routinely refuse to accept firearms for safekeeping.
There have been a couple of pro-gun bills filed this week as well. SB 5167 (Hargrove, D-24) allows persons who lawfully possess suppressors (silencers) to actually shoot with them, an act now prohibited by state law. SB 5167 is not currently scheduled for a hearing. Another as-yet unnumbered bill is one from Senator Pam Roach (R-31) that would extend the validity of CPLs possessed by military members if they are deployed out of state. Their 90-day clock on renewal would start upon their return. That bill will be heard with the anti-gun bills on 25 January.
Bills have been filed in both the Senate (SB 5383) and House (HB 1213) that would put a lower age limit on hunting license issuance, 10 years of age. It would also limit attendance at the state-mandated hunter ed courses to those aged 10 and over. Children younger than 10 could still attend other firearms safety courses.
A public hearing on SBs 5131, 5342, 5343, 5344, the a/w ban, the .50 BMG ban and the military CPL renewal bill will be held on Tuesday, 25 January in Senate Hearing Room 1, John A. Cherberg Senate Office Building. The hearing runs from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. WE NEED AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO ATTEND THIS HEARING, and to sign in on the sign-in
sheet taking a “pro” (for) or “con” (against) position.
If you know of any pro-gun police officers or retired officers who might be able to attend and speak against the anti-gun bills, it would help immensely. Without doubt the “cop lobby” will speak in favor of the bills.
BILL STATUS:
Bill # Subject Sponsor Status
SB 5041 Sentencing range McCaslin (R-4) S. Jud.
SB 5131 Insanity finding/firearms Carrell (R-28 ) S.Jud.
SB 5167 Firearm suppressors Hargrove (D-24) S.Jud.
SB 5342 Safe storage of firearms Kohl-Welles (D-36) S.Jud.
SB 5343 Gun show loophole Kohl-Welles (D-36) S.Jud.
SB 5344 Capitol campus gun ban Fairley (D-32) S. Jud.
SB 5383 Juvenile hunting licenses Oke (R-26) S. NatRes
SB xxxx Assault weapon ban Kline (D-37) S. Jud.
SB xxxx .50 BMG rifle ban Kline (D-37) S. Jud.
SB xxxx deployed military CPL renewal Roach (R-31) S. Jud.
HB 1133 Public disclosure law Nixon (R-45) H. StatGov
HB 1213 Juvenile hunting licenses Clements (R-14) H.NatRes
HJM 4002 Manufacturer protection Curtis (R-18 ) H.Jud.
Key to abbreviations: S. = Senate, H. = House, HJM = House Joint Memorial, Jud = Judiciary, CJ&J = Criminal Justice & Corrections, Fish/Ecol = Fisheries, Ecology & Parks, JuvJust = Juvenile Justice, Educ = Education, LocGov = Local Government, NatRes = Natural Resources; W&M = Ways and Means
GOAL position on bills:
SB 5041 Neutral
SB 5131 Neutral
SB 5167 Support
SB 5342 Oppose
SB 5343 Oppose
SB 5344 Concerns
SB 5383 Concerns
a/w ban Oppose
.50 ban Oppose
mil. CPL Support
HB 1133 Neutral
HB 1213 Concerns
HJM 4002 Support
Note: Our position on bills may change as they are amended and move
through the process.
HEARINGS SCHEDULED:
Senate Judiciary 3:30 p.m. 25 Jan Senate Hearing Rm 1
Public testimony will be taken on seven gun bills, three of which don’t even have bill numbers as this is being written. The bills are SBs 5131, 5342, 5343, 5344, the assault weapon ban, the .50 BMG rifle ban, and the
deployed military CPL renewal.
LEGISLATIVE HOT LINE: You may reach your Representatives and Senator by calling the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Toll free!!! The hearing impaired may obtain TDD access at 1-800-635-9993. Also toll free!!!
1-800-562-6000 TDD 1-800-635-9993
OTHER DATA: Copies of pending legislation (bills), legislative schedules and other information are available on the legislature's web site at "www.leg.wa.gov". It's available in two versions: text (.txt) file or Acrobat (.pdf) file. The "Acrobat" version is preferred as it is easier to read and is an exact copy of the hard copy format the legislators use. You may download a free version of Adobe Acrobat from Adobe's web site. You may also obtain hard copy bills, initiatives, etc, in the mail from the Legislative Bill Room FREE OF CHARGE by calling 1-360-786-7573.
Copies of bills may also be ordered toll free by calling the Legislative Hotline at (800) 562-6000. You may also hear floor and committee hearing action live at http://www.tvw.org/ (you need "RealAudio" to do this, available free at the TVW web site).
By reading the House and Senate "bill reports" (hbr, sbr) for each bill, you can see how individual committee members voted. By reading the "roll call" for each bill, you can see how the entire House or Senate voted on any bill. The beauty of the web site is that ALL this information is available, on line, to any citizen.
GET THE WORD OUT: If you want to subscribe to the GOAL Post by e-mail, send a message to "jwaldron@halcyon.com". Please pass GOAL Post on to anyone you believe may have an interest in protecting our rights. Better yet, make a couple of copies of this message, post it on your gun club’s bulletin board, and leave copies with your local gun shop(s). PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO DUPLICATE OR REDISTRIBUTE GOAL POST PROVIDED IT IS REPRODUCED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT TEXTUAL MODIFICATION AND CREDIT IS GIVEN TO GOAL. I can be reached at "jwaldron@halcyon.com" or (during session) by telephone at (425) 454-4915. Unfortunately, I am unable to mail hard copy GOAL Post to individuals. Limited numbers of hard copies MAY be available at WAC gun shows.
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself,
or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall
be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize,
maintain or employ an armed body of men."
Article 1, Section 24
Constitution of the State of Washington
Copyright 2005 Gun Owners Action League of WA
Permalink
|
|
|
