HOUSE BILL 1371- Washington State Firearms Freedom Act of 2013

Author:Cliff

On January 24 2013 a new Bill was introduced in our legislature by Rep. Matt Shea, Rep. Shelly Short, Rep. Liz Pike, Rep. Elizabeth Scott, Rep. David Taylor, Rep. Joe Schmick, Rep. Larry Crouse, Rep. Cary Condotta, Rep. Dan Kristiansen and Rep. Jason Overstreet.

It is called the Washington State Firearms Freedom Act of 2013

HereĀ are the first 2 Section of this proposed Bill:

1 AN ACT Relating to adopting the Washington state firearms freedom
2 act of 2013 and establishing penalties; amending RCW 43.06.220; adding
3 a new chapter to Title 19 RCW; creating a new section; and prescribing
4 penalties.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
6 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This act may be known and cited as the
7 Washington state firearms freedom act of 2013.

8 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The legislature declares that the authority
9 for this act is the following:
10 (1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution
11 guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the
12 federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the
13 state and people of Washington certain powers as they were understood
14 at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in 1889. The
15 guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and
16 people of Washington and the United States as of the time that the
17 compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
18 Washington and the United States in 1889.

p. 1 HB 1371
1 (2) The ninth amendment to the United States Constitution
2 guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution and
3 reserves to the people of Washington certain rights as they were
4 understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in
5 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the
6 state and people of Washington and the United States as of the time
7 that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
8 Washington and the United States in 1889.
9 (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states
10 under the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
11 (4) The second amendment to the United States Constitution reserves
12 to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was
13 understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in
14 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the
15 state and people of Washington and the United States as of the time
16 that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
17 Washington and the United States in 1889.
18 (5) Article I, section 24 of the Washington state Constitution
19 clearly secures to Washington citizens, and prohibits government
20 interference with, the right of individual Washington citizens to keep
21 and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the
22 1889 Washington state Constitution, which was approved by congress and
23 the people of Washington, and the right exists as it was understood at
24 the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and
25 adopted by Washington and the United States in 1889.

Read the complete bill here:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1371.pdf

Contact the legislators proposing this bill here:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1371

Tags: , , , ,

10 comments

  1. avatar

    Note sure offhand if this would accomplish the same thing, but this seems related:

    “Wyoming House Approves Bills Exempting State From Federal Gun Control Measures”
    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/31/wyoming-house-approves-bills-exempting-state-from-federal-gun-control-measures/

  2. avatar

    Did I read this wrong. Does it not just apply to weapons made in Washington??

    1. avatar

      Yes. It just applies to firearms made in Washington.

      Not many know but we until last week or so had a firearm manufacturer here on the Island. They manufactured a real nice single shot .22 called the Varner Sporting Rifle. The ATF harrased them so bad they surrendered their license…interesting tidbit…

        1. avatar

          Varner manufactured a single-shot .22 rifle? What caused the ATF to harass them over that?

          1. avatar

            From what I understand it was over receivers that they didn’t receive when they bought the company many years ago. There was a discrepancy in the inventory that was not resolved some 30 years ago when they bought the business and now all of a sudden it is an issue with the BATF…either spend a million dollars or give up your license. All over a frigging single shot .22 caliber rifle. Not like they were manufacturing .50 BMG’s or anything…

            Sad story about a small local manufacturer caught up in the Federal bureaucracy and losing…

    2. avatar

      That’s how I read it, too, but I suppose, maybe if the bill sponsors intend legislation based on the Commerce Clause, and, maybe, if they also intend something that will also stand up to legal challenge, this maybe makes some sense?

      However, it seems LAME when compared to a similar in Wyoming, which appears to go much farther: essentially, NULLIFYING the newly anticipated Federal laws which further infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights believed to be coming – in advance.

      Also, isn’t this state one of TWO that has just told the Federal Government to “BUZZ OFF” when it comes to recreational sales of marijuana? Why not take a similar “BUZZ OFF” stance on this 2nd Amendment issue, which is ALREADY spelled out in the WA State Constitution (I don’t see a “right” to marijuana referenced in there anywhere).

      How many actual firearms manufacturers exist in WA State, anyway? Any chance this bill is aimed at helping those particular businesses?

      Gun Manufacturers in Washington
      http://www.armsdealer.net/businesses/category/gun-manufacturers/washington

  3. avatar

    Please Contact:

    Senator Barbara Bailey Barbara.Bailey@leg.wa.gov
    Representative Dave Hayes http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/dave-hayes/
    Representative Norma Smith houserepublicans.wa.gov/norma-smith/

    and express the importance for this bill and ask each one to support it. A short message is best. (This bill is a “States Rights issue.)

  4. avatar

    Montana attempted a similar bill a couple years ago. I think it passed the legislature but lacked sufficient support to override the governor’s veto. There is a Balance of Powers Act currently making its way through the Michigan Legislature, and a Balance of Powers was submitted to the Tennessee Legislature a couple weeks ago. I am told that a similar Balance of Powers Act failed in the Arizona Legislature last year by one vote and may be back for reconsideration and Governor Brewer would likely sign it.

    This legislation is intended to enforce the U.S. Tenth Amendment with individual states passing the legislation. It is believed that once a few states have passed this Act, the rest quickly will follow. Restricting the federal government to the specific authorities granted by the states with the states re-assuming all other powers, including imaginative U.S. Supreme Court rulings, will certainly solve the majority of problems now plaguing American Citizens, state and local governments. Do I think there’s a chance? Yes, today it appears to be the only peaceful option.

  5. avatar

    This bill also exempts existing firearms and “accessories” (ie. magazines) from Federal interference (see Section 5 of the complete Bill). It also strikes a portion of the law suspending the ability to carry a firearm out of ones residence during a period of marshal law.

Comments are now closed.