Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
This will be in parts, as I’m getting tired of typing… Part 1:
Juliana Roe: *reads and introduces bill*
Adam Kline [3:15]: My own reason for bringing this bill is to remove from commerce, eventually, over the course of years the most lethal weapons that we have legally to this day. We have already banned, at the federal level, we have already banned machine guns. This is a reasonable extension from that ban to ban certain semi-automatics that meet certain physical characteristics. The bill is patterned after the federal assault ban - assault weapon ban that was in effect at the federal level from 1994 to 2004. It's very much the same language, almost identical, changed where it has to be to adapt to state law. The bill simply bans a subset of semi-automatic weapons. That is, semi-automatic weapons clearly defined by their physical characteristics, as the federal ban did. Words can be so accurate. We write laws in words. This is not mathematical precision. What we are aiming after, as Congress did, is those semi-automatics that have such characteristics as a pistol grip before the trigger, a barrel shroud; that have characteristics that make it more lethal than your ordinary deer rifle. And if you (lots of noise in audience interrupts Kline, I think people were pissed about how inaccurate that description was and yell out about it). Yeah I'm sorry it is. And by the way, if you feel that these words are inadequate, please feel free to offer _reasonable_ alternatives that make this ban more specific to guns that you might disagree, that you might feel are more lethal. If there is specific reasonable language that you want to offer, if you're testifying, please do. But I want you to know that I've asked the National Rifle Association to do that, and they've refused. The idea being somehow that words cannot describe a particular class of weapons. Let me tell you about two people. One is a young man, lived in my district, aged 17, who was murdered in July by another young man using an assault weapon. His name is Aaron Sullivan; his mother, Dr. Deborah Sullivan, is going to be testifying today. And I'm going to ask that you maintain a certain dignity in this room and accord her the honor of a woman whose son recently died. I think we need civility here and I think we need to take this seriously. The other is officer Tim Brenton, killed a few blocks away on Halloween, a few months, three months, after this murder of Aaron Sullivan. Also by an assault weapon. Someone who clearly wanted to execute actually two officers, officer Brenton and another trainee. There have been very few murders before that, but the federal ban expired five years ago, it's now true that guns are becoming available in commerce. Some months ago I went to a shooting range in Black Diamond with Senator Roach and shot with Senator Roach, and shot oh I don't want to say maybe a couple dozen rounds. Maybe more than a couple dozen, it was probably a bunch of rounds from a variety of things. One was an AR 15, there was a few other weapons, the models of which I forget. All of them were as I recall guns that would have been banned, will be banned by this bill. At that range I was very, very impressed, favorably impressed, by the safety consciousness, conscientious attitude of the people involved. A safety officer is required when any shooting takes place. There are signs all over saying "Please, keep your children away from the range." Every effort was made to maintain safety. It was responsibility incarnate. It was perfect. All I am asking from our state legislators, my colleagues, and from members of the community that is, that favors gun rights is to use that sense of responsibility, that conscientiousness, about a different problem, and that is the problem of to whose hands these guns go. It's not just conscientious people, as you can tell from the experience in my district. There's an arms race going on, just like the arms race in the 1950s 60s and 70s. If the Soviets get this missile, we feel we need to get this missile. Now criminals are getting assault weapons; we now, understandably, feel we need to have assault weapons for self-defense. I understand that, I get that, it's human nature. Why, then, I ask, do we allow assault weapons to be in commerce in the first place causing this arms race? So be it, I think that's sufficient. We have witnesses who can speak more eloquently than I, on both sides, so let's get to them.
Roach [8:55]: I have a question
Kline: Senator Roach
Roach: Does the time start now?
Kline: Yes
Roach: Okay, and just for the record, and I want you to understand how much I appreciate your being fair, but when I did, when we did hear when I was chair initiative 200 I took the people in um, the percentage of those that appeared one way or another and the room was hugely in favor of your side of the position. Just for - and we only heard it that way - and I think you sent me a very nice note afterward saying what a fair I had done, and you're trying to be fair a little bit differently. I let them testify in order of how many versus how many. So, for our purposes today, just let me allow this. How many of you are here today opposed to this bill. Could you please raise your hand if you're opposed to this bill? I want the crowd to see this. I'd like the press to see this. These are the people that are here, and please go out in the hallway there will be a whole bunch of others. Because the majority, probably, I'm looking at that, 98% of the people here today are opposed to this bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Kline [9:50]: Sure. Um, anyway, we have a number of people to testify on both sides. Let me start first with the woman I mentioned before, Dr. Deborah Sullivan. I believe is in the audience. *looking around* I know she's... here somewhere, if she's not, we'll skip over her for now. *crowd points and answers* I'm sorry? *question* We're on the assault weapons bill. Okay, is Dr. Sullivan in the room? Oookay, why don't we wait for her to get, if somebody could go get her, I'd appreciate it. *time passes* Dr. Sullivan, could you just identify yourself for the record?
Dr Sullivan [11:21]: Deborah Renetta Sullivan.
Kline: Dr. Sullivan, do you have something you want to say.
Dr Sullivan [11:24]: Yes. I am here because my son, Aaron Sullivan, was killed in July by an assault weapon. He was killed by another young man, a 19 year old, and my feeling on this is that we have laws that protect our children from tobacco and from narcotics and from alcohol and we determine when they can drive and when they can vote, and I would just love to see us take some responsibility in protecting our young people from assault weapons. Because they are impulsive and it was an impulse action that resulted in the death of my son. And if young people are impulsive and we know that I would like to just see us take some action to be able to keep our children safe and keep assault weapons out of the hands of our most vulnerable young people. Thank you.
Kline [12:26]: Any questions for Dr. Sullivan? (none) Thank you Dr. As I understand it, the weapon that was used to kill your son is not yet available or is not yet known. Do you know what the model of that weapon was?
Dr Sullivan: No, I don't
Kline [12:44]: Other comments, questions?... I want to thank you for coming forward and I appreciate your personal strength in testifying today.
Dr Sullivan: You're welcome
Kline: Okay, I'd like to have somebody. I know there are a number of people who have signed in who are opposed to the bill, and I'd certainly like to hear from somebody. And let me ask, is either Murton Cooper or Mrs Cooper present in the room? I know Mr Cooper likes to be heard on this matter and I'll make sure he is if he's come as far as he usually does. I'm going to call somebody then...the first person on the sign in sheets.
Roach: Mr Chairman? If I could be so humble here as to ask if we could have a few people that represent some of the larger groups of second amendment supporters so that they can sum up and use our time wisely?
Kline: Sure
Roach: Thank you very much, maybe there are three of them -
Kline: -anybody who's a leader of an organization that's been designated to testify?
Roach: Mr Judy I know and he probably has two friends, at least, I would think.
Kline: Brian, if you want to come up?
Roach: He doesn't have two friends, Brian? *chuckles* And Jim Williams might be here. I know Klaus Mai would like to. I mean, Dave Workman, absolutely ..
Kline: By the way, I only called Brian. You're a photographer?
Dave Workman: No, I'm only packing this thing (camera) because I didn't want to leave it back there on the chair.
Kline: Yeah yeah, I'm pulling people up off the sign in sheet, but Senator prince, as a courtesy to her, er, Senator Roach, as a courtesy to her we're going to have Brian testify. Go ahead.
Brian Judy [14:40]: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Brian Judy. I am the Washington state liaison for the National Rifle Association. I'm here testifying in opposition to this bill on behalf of our 92,000 Washington NRA members. In this day and age of bro-24 hour news, I want to give you a bit of breaking news that you probably won't hear in a Washington media, and that is that 70 million gun owners didn't break the law today. Millions didn't break the law with firearms that are classified as assault weapons under this bill. This bill is unconstitutional, it's arbitrary, it won't reduce crime, and it will divert scarce law enforcement resources. I'm going to try and be real brief and just gloss over these points and give other people opportunity to speak. Not only does it violate the state right to keep and bear arms provision, article 1 section 24, but it's a gross violation of the 4th amendment. Allowing Sheriffs to come into peoples’ homes-
Kline: -excuse me, Brian, but you and I discussed that bill, there would be an amendment taking that out. There is no purpose in having that clause. Feel free to disregard that
Brian Judy: Yeah, well right now it's still in there. It will not reduce crime. Over 99% of gun owners are law abiding. The less than 1 percent that misuse firearms, use firearms that are characterized as these types of weapons less than 1% of the time. Witness Maurice Clemmons who killed four police officers in Lakewood with a .38 special revolver and a stolen nine millimeter pistol, and also realize he killed four police officers firing eight rounds. So, consider that when you're considering a ten round magazine limitation. It will do nothing for crime. It will divert, the bill will divert scarce law enforcement resources: the sheriffs could likely spend the rest of their careers searching law abiding citizens' homes. This bill has definitional problems. The chairman mentioned that the NRA refused to give language; I would characterize it as - it's impossible to give language. As I told the sponsor, you can ban all semi-automatic firearms or you can ban none of them, but if you try to carve out some arbitrary subset what you're going to end up with is a confusing and utterly ineffective nightmare of law and regulation. Witness California banned a law 20 years ago on so-called assault weapons; 20 years later all we've experienced is clean-up legislation, litigation, and proliferation of these firearms. That's one of the main things that these bills cause is people to go out and buy these firearms. These guns are everywhere in California. You can pull out newspapers and there are ads for these guns for sale everywhere. Arguably, as you've heard, the focus of this bill is to find some measure of lethality. Pistol grips have nothing to with lethality. Magazine detachability - firearms with detachable magazines have been around for a century, it's common for use in self-defense firearms. Again, it's either evil or it's not - ban them all or don't ban any of them. Don't try to play in the middle, you're just going to end up with a disastrous situation. Magazine capacity - arbitrary and meaningless. A concealed pistols license holder with a self-defense firearm and 10 round magazine with 11 rounds in it - he's a felon. Criminal takes two 10 round magazines - he's fine. Let me just conclude by saying this bill will sow confusion, not control. Other states and federal law have resulted in, again, three outcomes: rampant confusion, unjust prosecution, and increased sales. Everybody loses with this bill. I appreciate the time to speak.
Kline [18:20]: Brian, I have a question for you and possibly others do. You and I had a little legal discussion yesterday where you and I talked about the case of DC, District of Columbia versus Heller, a recent Supreme Court decision regarding the District of Columbia's total ban, which it rightfully found unconstitutional. But let me read you some language before you call this ban unconstitutional. And this is quoting now from the majority opinion. "Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone to the 19th century cases, commentators and the court routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose." ...and then citing some cases... "For example, the majority of 19th century courts to consider the question considered that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the second amendment, or state analogues" ...again citing more cases, and these are state cases, and go on... "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons, the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and governmental buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the conditional sale of arms." Isn't that a fairly clear and concise of laws like this?
Brian Judy [19:51]: I don't think it's a validation of laws like _this_. Clearly the court has always ruled that reasonable regulations are allowed, and as you pointed out, provisions restricting felons or other ineligible people. But to take away legitimate firearms from law abiding citizens. I don't think it is covered. And, again, the Washington state constitution, article 1 section 24, is even more clear, it's explicit; it's an individual right, and it's for self-defense. Period.
Roach: Mr Chairman, I have a question for him.
Kline: Before we go, Senator Roach has a question, and then we'll go to the next witness. Just so you all understand, this is an invitation by the US Supreme Court, to state legislatures, to pass reasonable, safety-conscious restrictions on the nature of the people allowed to own, and the nature of the guns themselves, and that's very explicit from the words I just read. Senator Roach.
More to come...
This will be in parts, as I’m getting tired of typing… Part 1:
Juliana Roe: *reads and introduces bill*
Adam Kline [3:15]: My own reason for bringing this bill is to remove from commerce, eventually, over the course of years the most lethal weapons that we have legally to this day. We have already banned, at the federal level, we have already banned machine guns. This is a reasonable extension from that ban to ban certain semi-automatics that meet certain physical characteristics. The bill is patterned after the federal assault ban - assault weapon ban that was in effect at the federal level from 1994 to 2004. It's very much the same language, almost identical, changed where it has to be to adapt to state law. The bill simply bans a subset of semi-automatic weapons. That is, semi-automatic weapons clearly defined by their physical characteristics, as the federal ban did. Words can be so accurate. We write laws in words. This is not mathematical precision. What we are aiming after, as Congress did, is those semi-automatics that have such characteristics as a pistol grip before the trigger, a barrel shroud; that have characteristics that make it more lethal than your ordinary deer rifle. And if you (lots of noise in audience interrupts Kline, I think people were pissed about how inaccurate that description was and yell out about it). Yeah I'm sorry it is. And by the way, if you feel that these words are inadequate, please feel free to offer _reasonable_ alternatives that make this ban more specific to guns that you might disagree, that you might feel are more lethal. If there is specific reasonable language that you want to offer, if you're testifying, please do. But I want you to know that I've asked the National Rifle Association to do that, and they've refused. The idea being somehow that words cannot describe a particular class of weapons. Let me tell you about two people. One is a young man, lived in my district, aged 17, who was murdered in July by another young man using an assault weapon. His name is Aaron Sullivan; his mother, Dr. Deborah Sullivan, is going to be testifying today. And I'm going to ask that you maintain a certain dignity in this room and accord her the honor of a woman whose son recently died. I think we need civility here and I think we need to take this seriously. The other is officer Tim Brenton, killed a few blocks away on Halloween, a few months, three months, after this murder of Aaron Sullivan. Also by an assault weapon. Someone who clearly wanted to execute actually two officers, officer Brenton and another trainee. There have been very few murders before that, but the federal ban expired five years ago, it's now true that guns are becoming available in commerce. Some months ago I went to a shooting range in Black Diamond with Senator Roach and shot with Senator Roach, and shot oh I don't want to say maybe a couple dozen rounds. Maybe more than a couple dozen, it was probably a bunch of rounds from a variety of things. One was an AR 15, there was a few other weapons, the models of which I forget. All of them were as I recall guns that would have been banned, will be banned by this bill. At that range I was very, very impressed, favorably impressed, by the safety consciousness, conscientious attitude of the people involved. A safety officer is required when any shooting takes place. There are signs all over saying "Please, keep your children away from the range." Every effort was made to maintain safety. It was responsibility incarnate. It was perfect. All I am asking from our state legislators, my colleagues, and from members of the community that is, that favors gun rights is to use that sense of responsibility, that conscientiousness, about a different problem, and that is the problem of to whose hands these guns go. It's not just conscientious people, as you can tell from the experience in my district. There's an arms race going on, just like the arms race in the 1950s 60s and 70s. If the Soviets get this missile, we feel we need to get this missile. Now criminals are getting assault weapons; we now, understandably, feel we need to have assault weapons for self-defense. I understand that, I get that, it's human nature. Why, then, I ask, do we allow assault weapons to be in commerce in the first place causing this arms race? So be it, I think that's sufficient. We have witnesses who can speak more eloquently than I, on both sides, so let's get to them.
Roach [8:55]: I have a question
Kline: Senator Roach
Roach: Does the time start now?
Kline: Yes
Roach: Okay, and just for the record, and I want you to understand how much I appreciate your being fair, but when I did, when we did hear when I was chair initiative 200 I took the people in um, the percentage of those that appeared one way or another and the room was hugely in favor of your side of the position. Just for - and we only heard it that way - and I think you sent me a very nice note afterward saying what a fair I had done, and you're trying to be fair a little bit differently. I let them testify in order of how many versus how many. So, for our purposes today, just let me allow this. How many of you are here today opposed to this bill. Could you please raise your hand if you're opposed to this bill? I want the crowd to see this. I'd like the press to see this. These are the people that are here, and please go out in the hallway there will be a whole bunch of others. Because the majority, probably, I'm looking at that, 98% of the people here today are opposed to this bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Kline [9:50]: Sure. Um, anyway, we have a number of people to testify on both sides. Let me start first with the woman I mentioned before, Dr. Deborah Sullivan. I believe is in the audience. *looking around* I know she's... here somewhere, if she's not, we'll skip over her for now. *crowd points and answers* I'm sorry? *question* We're on the assault weapons bill. Okay, is Dr. Sullivan in the room? Oookay, why don't we wait for her to get, if somebody could go get her, I'd appreciate it. *time passes* Dr. Sullivan, could you just identify yourself for the record?
Dr Sullivan [11:21]: Deborah Renetta Sullivan.
Kline: Dr. Sullivan, do you have something you want to say.
Dr Sullivan [11:24]: Yes. I am here because my son, Aaron Sullivan, was killed in July by an assault weapon. He was killed by another young man, a 19 year old, and my feeling on this is that we have laws that protect our children from tobacco and from narcotics and from alcohol and we determine when they can drive and when they can vote, and I would just love to see us take some responsibility in protecting our young people from assault weapons. Because they are impulsive and it was an impulse action that resulted in the death of my son. And if young people are impulsive and we know that I would like to just see us take some action to be able to keep our children safe and keep assault weapons out of the hands of our most vulnerable young people. Thank you.
Kline [12:26]: Any questions for Dr. Sullivan? (none) Thank you Dr. As I understand it, the weapon that was used to kill your son is not yet available or is not yet known. Do you know what the model of that weapon was?
Dr Sullivan: No, I don't
Kline [12:44]: Other comments, questions?... I want to thank you for coming forward and I appreciate your personal strength in testifying today.
Dr Sullivan: You're welcome
Kline: Okay, I'd like to have somebody. I know there are a number of people who have signed in who are opposed to the bill, and I'd certainly like to hear from somebody. And let me ask, is either Murton Cooper or Mrs Cooper present in the room? I know Mr Cooper likes to be heard on this matter and I'll make sure he is if he's come as far as he usually does. I'm going to call somebody then...the first person on the sign in sheets.
Roach: Mr Chairman? If I could be so humble here as to ask if we could have a few people that represent some of the larger groups of second amendment supporters so that they can sum up and use our time wisely?
Kline: Sure
Roach: Thank you very much, maybe there are three of them -
Kline: -anybody who's a leader of an organization that's been designated to testify?
Roach: Mr Judy I know and he probably has two friends, at least, I would think.
Kline: Brian, if you want to come up?
Roach: He doesn't have two friends, Brian? *chuckles* And Jim Williams might be here. I know Klaus Mai would like to. I mean, Dave Workman, absolutely ..
Kline: By the way, I only called Brian. You're a photographer?
Dave Workman: No, I'm only packing this thing (camera) because I didn't want to leave it back there on the chair.
Kline: Yeah yeah, I'm pulling people up off the sign in sheet, but Senator prince, as a courtesy to her, er, Senator Roach, as a courtesy to her we're going to have Brian testify. Go ahead.
Brian Judy [14:40]: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Brian Judy. I am the Washington state liaison for the National Rifle Association. I'm here testifying in opposition to this bill on behalf of our 92,000 Washington NRA members. In this day and age of bro-24 hour news, I want to give you a bit of breaking news that you probably won't hear in a Washington media, and that is that 70 million gun owners didn't break the law today. Millions didn't break the law with firearms that are classified as assault weapons under this bill. This bill is unconstitutional, it's arbitrary, it won't reduce crime, and it will divert scarce law enforcement resources. I'm going to try and be real brief and just gloss over these points and give other people opportunity to speak. Not only does it violate the state right to keep and bear arms provision, article 1 section 24, but it's a gross violation of the 4th amendment. Allowing Sheriffs to come into peoples’ homes-
Kline: -excuse me, Brian, but you and I discussed that bill, there would be an amendment taking that out. There is no purpose in having that clause. Feel free to disregard that
Brian Judy: Yeah, well right now it's still in there. It will not reduce crime. Over 99% of gun owners are law abiding. The less than 1 percent that misuse firearms, use firearms that are characterized as these types of weapons less than 1% of the time. Witness Maurice Clemmons who killed four police officers in Lakewood with a .38 special revolver and a stolen nine millimeter pistol, and also realize he killed four police officers firing eight rounds. So, consider that when you're considering a ten round magazine limitation. It will do nothing for crime. It will divert, the bill will divert scarce law enforcement resources: the sheriffs could likely spend the rest of their careers searching law abiding citizens' homes. This bill has definitional problems. The chairman mentioned that the NRA refused to give language; I would characterize it as - it's impossible to give language. As I told the sponsor, you can ban all semi-automatic firearms or you can ban none of them, but if you try to carve out some arbitrary subset what you're going to end up with is a confusing and utterly ineffective nightmare of law and regulation. Witness California banned a law 20 years ago on so-called assault weapons; 20 years later all we've experienced is clean-up legislation, litigation, and proliferation of these firearms. That's one of the main things that these bills cause is people to go out and buy these firearms. These guns are everywhere in California. You can pull out newspapers and there are ads for these guns for sale everywhere. Arguably, as you've heard, the focus of this bill is to find some measure of lethality. Pistol grips have nothing to with lethality. Magazine detachability - firearms with detachable magazines have been around for a century, it's common for use in self-defense firearms. Again, it's either evil or it's not - ban them all or don't ban any of them. Don't try to play in the middle, you're just going to end up with a disastrous situation. Magazine capacity - arbitrary and meaningless. A concealed pistols license holder with a self-defense firearm and 10 round magazine with 11 rounds in it - he's a felon. Criminal takes two 10 round magazines - he's fine. Let me just conclude by saying this bill will sow confusion, not control. Other states and federal law have resulted in, again, three outcomes: rampant confusion, unjust prosecution, and increased sales. Everybody loses with this bill. I appreciate the time to speak.
Kline [18:20]: Brian, I have a question for you and possibly others do. You and I had a little legal discussion yesterday where you and I talked about the case of DC, District of Columbia versus Heller, a recent Supreme Court decision regarding the District of Columbia's total ban, which it rightfully found unconstitutional. But let me read you some language before you call this ban unconstitutional. And this is quoting now from the majority opinion. "Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone to the 19th century cases, commentators and the court routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose." ...and then citing some cases... "For example, the majority of 19th century courts to consider the question considered that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the second amendment, or state analogues" ...again citing more cases, and these are state cases, and go on... "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons, the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and governmental buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the conditional sale of arms." Isn't that a fairly clear and concise of laws like this?
Brian Judy [19:51]: I don't think it's a validation of laws like _this_. Clearly the court has always ruled that reasonable regulations are allowed, and as you pointed out, provisions restricting felons or other ineligible people. But to take away legitimate firearms from law abiding citizens. I don't think it is covered. And, again, the Washington state constitution, article 1 section 24, is even more clear, it's explicit; it's an individual right, and it's for self-defense. Period.
Roach: Mr Chairman, I have a question for him.
Kline: Before we go, Senator Roach has a question, and then we'll go to the next witness. Just so you all understand, this is an invitation by the US Supreme Court, to state legislatures, to pass reasonable, safety-conscious restrictions on the nature of the people allowed to own, and the nature of the guns themselves, and that's very explicit from the words I just read. Senator Roach.
More to come...