An interesting article from the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020325837_legislaturegunsxml.html

Some excerpts:

Carrying guns on the Capitol campus has long been allowed in Olympia. It’s seldom discussed, rarely criticized and speaks volumes about the debate over gun control this session.

In fact, Washington’s Capitol is one of the few in the country with no restrictions on firearms.

Of the 42 states that responded to the survey, only Washington, Texas and Kentucky indicated they had no restrictions on carrying weapons at their capitols. Eight states allowed people with concealed-weapons permits on campus, and the rest restricted firearms to law-enforcement and security staff.

Interesting to note the folks that support banning firearms on campus even though there has NEVER been an incident. Shows the predisposed bias (hoplophobia) that some inherently have against firearms - even though they are just inanimate objects.

Automated letters are great and certainly better than nothing but I believe that a personally crafted letter to your legislator will have most impact. The folks processing these letters can tell the difference between a one-click response and one that is actually written.

Several folks have expressed that they do not know what to write. Below I have included what I wrote and sent to my Senators and Representative. Interestingly only (1) responded back at all (not even auto-generated replies from the other two).

Feel free to use it as you like or take pieces from it. You may not agree with everything I say, or feel it reflects your tone -- I simply hope that it gives you ideas to craft your own. If nothing else please contact your legislators!

CA has just introduced draconian legislation to best even NY's recent laws. The time to act must be now!! It just takes a few clicks!

Who is your Representative? Find out here -> http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Who are your Senators? Find out here -> http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Here's what I sent to my legislators:

Dear Senator, I am writing in opposition to S.150 et al. Rhetoric on both sides is heated/debated so I will keep this brief.

1. Criminals don't obey laws. You are punishing lawful gun owners.

2. This is a supposed response to the Newtown Shooting. However, nothing in this bill or any proposed legislation would prevent this in the future (No bans, background checks, etc.) See #1 above. Even VP Biden has stated this and says that since public mood has changed is a good opportunity to push gun control. Ironically, CT already has many of the proposed controls in place. The Newtown shooter violated multiple laws, adding more would change nothing. If his mother did not have the firearms to steal (remember he killed her over) he would have found alternate means of destruction. He was not hindered by a "gun free zone." The worst U.S. school massacre was done with an explosive device - not a firearm.

3. This Bill is poorly written and ambigious. The military-like features provision is very interpretive. In particular the "pistol grip" definition could fit any firearm. It specifically bans "thumb-hole" stocks--I am not aware of ANY military firearm that uses a thumb-hole stock. These are cosmetic restrictions. What's next? All semi-autos like Australia?

4. A 10-shot magazine ban is arbitrary. Folks fear that it is just a stepping stone and will be reduced. Not so crazy when you look at NY's recent passage of a 7 shot limitation, now followed with similar bills in NJ, CT, Minn. In fact, there is a bill in CT to limit magazines to 1 shot!

5. A lot of folks are proposing confiscation (see NY's original draft) and the passed legislation requires that >7 shot mags be turned in or shipped out of state! Ex Post Facto? No grand fathering? It is not much of a stretch to think of the potential that once their "registry" of firearms is up and running that they simply rule that owners do the same thing.

6. Last but not least, the Constitution. I know this is hotly contested but I will quote James Madison, the man who wrote the Bill of Rights, from the Federalist Papers: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Founders knew what they were doing.

Additionally, I think that if a school decides that it wants armed security, police, or even wants to purchase metal detectors that we should help. The arguments that the kids will be traumatized are silly -- they go to the bank, mall, concerts, sporting events, airport now without a second thought.

Thank you for your time.

In NY it is (or soon will be) the law. Massachusetts has a proposal for similar legislation and now Minnesota joins too with HF243:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0243.0.html&session=ls88

I guess it is better than the CT bill I saw that attempts to limit firearms to a SINGLE shot! Seriously: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00122-R00-SB.htm

If you haven't contacted your legislators yet -- I urge you to do so. These a real threats!

From VP Biden:
LINK: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BDF76CF8-2C35-4654-9F68-DCB35A6F1F39

“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol.

But yet somehow he DEMANDS this same gun control and has the audacity to call it common sense.

We have been hearing rumors that bill(s) were coming and I was waiting until they were officially introduced. Besides the obvious (criminals don't follow laws) I am disturbed by how these new laws are proposed with complete disregard for existing laws. It's like the legislators don't know the current law and don't care to even look it up.

The WA State waiting period exempts concealed pistol license (CPL) holders since they have already been fingerprinted and background checked. However, this new bill has no exemption on private sales. So, if this passes - no wait for guns bought from a gun shop (owned by the gunshop), but a wait would be required for private sales which would have to go through the same dealer?

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/1/washington-universal-background-check-legislation-must-be-defeated.aspx

I don't know if it is media bias. Or just poor journalism but I have read multiple reports of the recent Seattle Gun Back giving folks a $200 Amazon gift card for turning in an "assault weapon" as "defined" by WA State Law.

Oh really? There is no definition as far as I know. I double checked. There is no definition in RCW9.41 (firearms and dangerous weapons). In fact, there is even a section for definitions where it is not. That took me about 2 minutes of online searching.

Here are a couple of links to the poorly researched articles:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020087447_apwagunbuyback3rdldwritethru.html

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Amazon-incentive-in-Seattle-gun-buyback-program-186051842.html

They both say:

Amazon.com, which has been expanding its headquarters in Seattle, kicked in $30,000 in Amazon gift cards - $100 for each handgun, rifle or shotgun turned in, and $200 for each gun classified as an assault weapon under state law.

Ever heard of fact checking?

If they can't get this simple legal fact correct (either the definition exists under RCW or it doesn't) can we really expect them to report ANY firearms legal issues?

Now, kudos go to this journalist who actually did some research and spent the 2 minutes to give factual information: http://www.westseattleherald.com/2013/01/10/news/update-firearms-collected-gun-buyback-event-will-

SPD also released details on how to distinguish between a regular gun and an assault weapon (regular guns get $100, assault weapons get $200):

"While the state doesn’t have anything on the books defining “assault weapons”, here’s what our in-house gun experts came up with for the purposes of the gun buyback: [snipped...generic Feinstein 1993 AWB definition]

Thank you West Seattle Herald for being actual journalists, doing research, and actually updating your article to reflect correct information.

I was considering Geico for motorcycle insurance. Not any more. http://topconservativenews.com/2013/01/geico-cancels-auto-insurance-because-policy-holder-makes-gun-parts-for-a-living/

A lot has been about Feinstein's "2013 Assault Weapons Ban" but up until now I had been unable to find any actual sources of the bill introduced Thursday. Today an entry appears for it in THOMAS (thomas.loc.gov), but no text.

CNN ran an article (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details/index.html) titled "What's in Feinstein's gun bill" with the actual text of bill. But you can't copy it, save it, or copy/paste it. The "text" option doesn't even convert it correctly. Weird, why so protective?

Anyway, a little more fishing found the bill on Feinstein's own website here: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

I attach the PDF it to this post in case it should disappear.
Read it and then call your legislators.

People thought that the AWB in 1994 would never pass. This is one is far worse.

Page 9 of 14