Ban my semi-automatic weapon--NOT LIKELY

[2000SR380]

geo,

Here's a link to a website where you can leave a message to your reps about that bill.... https://app.leg.wa.gov/PBC/Bill/2354 .

I left this message to my reps:
'Here we are yet again with another gun control law that a legislator is trying to get passed in his attempt to pander to the gun control crowd. Another law that the criminals can ignore. What is it about some people? They don't understand that laws like this will only apply to those people who are willing to obey the law. Criminals, by their nature, do not obey laws. It's already illegal to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. It's already illegal for felons and some other classes of people to possess a firearm. What is it about this law that the sponsor thinks will make people obey it? My suggestion is to enforce the laws already on the books. Arrest and prosecute felons who are caught with firearms. Do the same with people who possess firearms in the commission of a crime. Enforce the "gun enhancement" laws. Please join me and thousands of other WA voters in stopping this bill that will only affect law abiding gun owners. Thank you. "

I got replies from two reps and both were solidly against the bill and will vote accordingly.

Nice Letter! Not long and preachy or meandering. Short, Sweet, and to the point.

 

[Gofirstclass]

Thanks. Here's another reply I got back today...

"Thank you for expressing your concern regarding House Bill 2354, I understand why this issue is important to you. Senator Schoesler is a strong supporter of our 2nd amendment rights and he will do what he can to protect those rights. The Senator swore an oath to “uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, the Constitution and the laws of the state of Washington.” And will stand by that oath.

At first reaction, the Senator sees this as a gun rights grab. Currently there is one sponsor in the House and no companion bill in the Senate. Senator Schoesler gives all proposed legislation a fair look, and by the looks of this one, we don’t see it gaining much traction this legislative session.

Thank you again for your email. Please feel free to contact the office anytime to share your concerns. We appreciate your email and those from other constituents as they help better prepare Senator Schoesler to represent his district.

Sincerely,

Katie Kincaid
Legislative Intern - Senator Mark Schoesler
Senate Majority Leader"

 

[geo737]

Gofirstclass, Thanks for sharing the response from the state legislature- gives some hope that there are some reasonable people in the government. MonacoMike- yes, one group wouldn't exist without the other, so they "feed" on each other as a result making for some interesting reading and discussion if nothing else. While I do support the NRA, I do not always agree with everything they do. I feel sometimes they may get a little overzealous in protecting our Second Amendment rights, but I am glad they are there to curb the tide of the current regime and others intent on trying to take that right away from us. It is unfortunate that folks on both sides of the issue can't put away their emotions and come up with some sensible compromises to the gun issue. I work with a gentleman who had forwarded me an online petition from one of the current presidential candidates and their (the candidates) list of 9 or 10 items they would put forth regarding gun controls. I read thru the proposals and answered back to my coworker each item on the list. I found the proposal quite interesting in the fact that this candidate was wanting to add to the laws that were already on the books, so that told me they either didn't do their due diligence in researching the current laws or were throwing out proposals in order to make themselves look good to the voters (my guess is the latter) the topics ranged from the current buzz on mental health issues, penalties for running guns, to background checks. It's fortunate that my coworker and I can have a civil discussion regarding issues that we are on both sides of the fence on and that we can agree to disagree and respect each others position. I have a sister-in-law in Oregon who is a staunch anti-gunner- I respect her position however, she doesn't bring the subject up any longer. After one of the first shootings she went on a diatribe regarding firearms. I, being my tactful self shut her down pretty hard. I asked her which is more dangerous- a vehicle, a pair of sharp scissors, a knife, a baseball bat or a firearm. naturally she jumped on the firearm. I asked her why and she went off about how dangerous they are and a few other items. I asked well, aren't they all dangerous? then I asked if you put them on a table next to each other will they magically jump up and cause harm? She was at a loss of words for a few moments. I then asked will they only become dangerous when they are handled or used in a manner that is unsafe or in a manner intent on doing harm? She didn't have anything else to say after that. The point I was making and I believe this gets lost on people that get blinded by emotions that they can lose the ability to think through something logically or it forces them to admit to something that has merit. I was trying to get across that we cannot predict (within reason) what is in peoples hearts and minds or how they are going to react to a given situation. Someone intent on doing harm will use any means available to them and firearms are the one item that raises the most emotions and controversy. Sorry, got off on a tangent there for a little bit. My wife and I watch what is going on within the gun control crowd and watch for things like what the state of Washington is looking to try to implement. While we are both firearm owners, we also agree that sensible controls and rules can be beneficial to all interested parties.